Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Read the third time, and passed.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Married Quarters

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what rents are

Rank and appropriate quarter
Standard charge per annum
Abated Charge per annum


Group III Quarter
Junior Officer's Quarter
Sub Standard Quarter


Air Vice-Marshal and above Group I or special design
£175*
£160
£135
£75


Air Commodore: Group 11
£160
£160
£135
£75


Group Captain: Group II
£135
£135
£135
£75


Wing Commander: Group III
£135
£135
£135
£75


Squadron Leader and below: Junior Officer's Quarters
£100
£100
£100
£75


* Applies also when occupying a Group II Quarter.

Operations, Malaya

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are taken by the Royal Air Force in Malaya to prevent injury to the unarmed civilian population during raids on bandit areas.

Mr. A. Henderson: No bandit-infested area is attacked from the air unless the civil authorities are satisfied that there is no risk to the civilian population. The Royal Air Force take every precaution to ensure accuracy in the attacks.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister tell us how it is possible to bomb any area without endangering the population; and

paid for married quarters by Royal Air Force officers whose rank is senior to those for whom their accommodation was primarily intended.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Air-Commodore Harvey: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still satisfied that the allocation of these quarters to officers who start their service as officers is satisfactory?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. In relation to the position in civilian life the treatment of these officers and the rents they are asked to pay are, from their point of view, very satisfactory.

Following is the answer

does he not think that this is more likely to create anti-British feeling in Malaya than anything else?

Mr. Henderson: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. These bombing attacks take place not on urban areas, towns or villages, but on the bandit camps and hide-outs.

Mr. Eden: Is it not the fact that nearly all these bombs are dropped actually on the jungle, on the bandit columns when they are there, without endangering any population other than animal life?

Commander Noble: Is it not also the case that in some places the bandits are


rather dependent upon those who live around them, and would it not be wise for those people to keep away from the bandits?

Mr. Henderson: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Working Week

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the proposal to introduce a seven-day week in Germany, in the light of the practice of trade unionism; and, in view of the interference with Sunday observance, which would be caused.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Working arrangements of this nature are a matter for determination by employers and trade unions, subject to any restrictions imposed by German law. No proposal has been made to introduce a seven-day week generally in German industry. The possibility has been examined of introducing seven-day operation in selected plants in the iron and steel industry with the object of obtaining increased and more balanced production but it has been decided that the time is not opportune for such a measure.

Occupation Costs

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum the population of Western Germany are expected to contribute towards the Army of Occupation in 1949.

Mr. Bevis: This information is not yet available. The estimates for Occupation costs and other requirements of the Forces of Occupation in Western Germany for the financial year which began on 1st April, 1949, are still under consideration by the Military Governors.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN, BRITISH PROTESTANT CHAPELS

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British Protestant churches have been ordered to be closed in Spain since

1st January, 1947; how many are now closed; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Bevin: Seven British Protestant chapels in Spain have been closed by order of the Spanish authorities since 1st January, 1947, and are still closed. His Majesty's Embassy in Madrid drew the attention of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to this matter on 21st January, 1948. In the meantime, repeated petitions were made by the pastors of the British chapels for permission to reopen, but these had no effect. The Embassy accordingly addressed a further note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 31st, December, 1948, referring to the assurance given by the Spanish Ambassador in London on behalf of General Franco in 1937 that full religious liberty would be granted to all classes and creeds in Spain; and demanding that the properties should be restored without delay and that those chapels which had fulfilled all requirements of the law should be allowed to reopen. A reply was received to the effect that the matter would be investigated. On 24th March, 1949, His Majesty's Embassy addressed a third note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which they reminded them that they were still awaiting a final reply to their previous representations. The hon. Member may be assured that I shall continue to pursue this matter.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if it is a fact that the majority of these chapels have been closed down by the local authorities rather than by the central Government and can he press on the central Government to exercise greater control over the activities of the local authorities?

Mr. Bevin: From my point of view the central Government are responsible. I do not believe anyone can do anything in Spain without the authority of the central Government.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Has my right hon. Friend taken the opportunity of reminding the British delegation to the United Nations of the continuance of religious persecution and other objectionable features of the present Spanish Government?

Mr. Bevin: I think that is constantly coming up.

Mr. Wilson Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken specifically of chapels; does he mean that any Anglican churches are left uninterfered with and does he know what denominations the chapels represent?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot give the denominations at the moment, but I think they are mainly Baptist chapels.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what pretext these chapels were closed down; whether they did not comply with some local law, or whether it was some religious intolerance?

Mr. Bevin: I should say it was religious intolerance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the results of the policy adopted in 1947 of overhauling the 10-year development plan in Northern Rhodesia and making the country self-supporting in foodstuffs.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Reid: In view of the fact that the population of this territory has doubled in the last 36 years, is there any hope that they will be able to carry on without outside aid?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question.

Following is the answer

The revision of this plan with the object of helping to secure increased food production in Northern Rhodesia was approved by the Legislative Council last June and it is too early yet to make any detailed statement on the results of the policy thus adopted. The following is a list of the measures so far taken to stimulate food production:

 (1) A guaranteed price for maize grown by European farmers is declared at the beginning of the season.
(2) In 1948 a bonus of 5s. a bag was paid for crops produced above the average of the

previous five years. (This bonus is not being repeated in 1949.)
(3) Payment of a uniform price for maize is guaranteed to African farmers within the Maize Control Board area, whether on or off the line of rail. This is intended to encourage the development of suitable but more distant maize land.
(4) The Government has introduced the grant of a bonus to African farmers, certified as farming on approved lines. Previously this was paid per bag delivered but now it is assessed on the basis of the acreage under maize and its rotational crops. This is proving a material encouragement to the African farmer to improve his methods of husbandry in the maize belt.
(5) Efforts to assist farmers in obtaining tractors, heavy earth-moving and stumping machinery are now beginning to be successful and the necessary machinery is arriving.
(6) Legislation was passed in 1948 to prevent the sale of immature and breeding stock, and a bounty on weaned beef cattle was introduced to encourage breeding and better methods of husbandry.
(7) The Government has introduced a scheme of financial loans to new settlers of up to £1,500 on a pound for pound basis, as an incentive to settlement and the bringing into cultivation of more land.
(8) A school is being opened for the training of African Agricultural Instructors and the Agricultural Department has been expanded so that their advice may be more widely available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Town Plan

Mr.Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the town plan for Aden has still not been implemented, in view of his announcement on 9th July, 1947, that steps had been taken to speed up the matter; and whether he is aware of the lack of waterborne drainage and the insanitary conditions of much of the town.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In accordance with the provisional town plans, development on a considerable scale is proceeding both in residential areas and also in light industrial zones. I cannot agree that much of the town of Aden is in an insanitary condition. The general health of the population is good.

Mr. Skeffington: Has my hon. Friend any knowledge about conditions in the tuberculosis hospital where, according to my last information, 40 men were lying on the floor?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I will look into that; I have no information.

Overcrowding

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Jews are arriving into Aden from the Yemen at the rate of 100 a month; and, in view of the overcrowding, what steps he proposes to take to relieve pressure on accommodation in the town of Aden.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; as to the second part, overcrowding in the town of Aden has been considerably relieved by emigration to Palestine.

Labour Department

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider establishing a labour department in Aden, in view of the fact that the coolie lines are overcrowded and insanitary.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (PRODUCERS' PROFITS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the accumulated profits held at present by the Nigerian Government on behalf of Nigerian producers of groundnuts, benniseed, palm oil and palm kernels; and when this sum will be distributed to Nigerian producers.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to my speech on Supplementary Estimates on 24th February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Shooting (Police Warnings)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what fresh instructions he has now given to the police in Malaya with regard to the shooting of women.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The regulations authorising the use of firearms in effecting arrests or preventing escapes already require clear warnings to be given before fire is opened. It is not practicable to discriminate in this matter between men and women. To do so might facilitate the escape of women who are themselves

bandits, or are suspected of assisting the bandits in their murderous activities. One of the women killed on 23rd February was in uniform and armed. On 20th April the hands of another woman were blown off by a grenade which she was in the act of throwing at a police patrol.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the previous statement that these two women were unarmed, will my hon. Friend consider giving an instruction that unarmed people should not be shot?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not remember that a statement was made to the effect that the women were unarmed. One of the women was armed and it is quite impossible to know whether a person is armed or not before fire is opened.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is it not well established that both in the case of the bandits and of the squatters who helped them there have been many cases of women who were armed attacking members of His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not the case that one of the two women shot was described in the official statement as running away and being chased for half a mile before she was shot? Was she armed?

Mr. Rees-Williams: One of the women was armed and one was not. I must point out to my hon. Friend that the country is very enclosed, the ground is rough and it is largely jungle. Half a mile in Malaya under those conditions is not like half a mile along Parliament Street. As to the other question, it is quite impossible to give orders to the police that they are not to fire unless they first search the people to find whether they are armed. That would destroy the whole point of the regulations.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is not this a case in which the principle of "equal pay for equal work" should apply between the sexes?

Advisory Committees

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many advisory committees there are in Malaya and Singapore; how many persons are on each committee; and what are their qualifications.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am obtaining the information required and will write to the hon. Member when it is received.

Detained Persons

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the authorities have evidence of illegal acts against the 3,964 persons under detention in Malaya and Singapore who have made objections to the advisory committees, but have not been released; and whether it is the intention of the authorities to charge them with alleged offences.

Mr. Rees-Williams: It is not in the public interest to indicate on what grounds these persons were detained. No charge need be brought against them and the second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Piratin: Is it not clear that if only 100 have been released out of 4,000 people who objected to being detained, the other 3,900 are entitled to be tried or released, and that if the authorities have definite charges against them, they should subject them to the usual court procedure? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We have looked into the matter very carefully, but, in the conditions in Malaya, one may be suspicious of persons against whom it is quite impossible to bring a charge. Either there is not sufficient evidence, or the witnesses are liable to be murdered while the case is proceeding. In those circumstances, it is necessary to have the measures we have taken. Every person who is detained has the right of going before a committee of review, which investigates the case and sees if there is evidence of some suspicious activity.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (PERIODICAL)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the weekly periodical, "World News and Views," has been confiscated on being posted to a British citizen in Malta.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Responsible government was restored to Malta under the Constitution of 1947, and it would not, therefore, be proper to answer this Question, which relates to a matter falling

within the competence of Maltese Ministers.

Mr. Piratin: Could the Minister discuss this matter privately with the authorities in Malta, in view of the fact that they are preventing a periodical entering the country which has quite a wide salt' in this country and therefore ought to be welcomed there?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I could not undertake to interfere with the way in which Maltese Ministers carry out responsibilities imposed on them by Parliament.

Mr. Frank Byers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. How is it that a Question is allowed to be put to a Minister and he is able to say that he is not responsible for it? It seems an important point, because other Questions have been refused. If the Question has been allowed, surely the Minister has a responsibility and should answer?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a self-governing Dominion. It is a Colony and the Minister is responsible for the Colonies.

Mr. Piratin: If the Minister is responsible for the Colonies—which, of course, is the reason why the Table accepted the Question—surely he has some responsibility, however indirectly, for looking into the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is for the Minister. He can refuse, or not, as he thinks fit.

Mr. Piratin: The Minister's answer was that he had no power. If he refused to answer, I should accept that, but I submit that he has responsibility, although he said he had no power.

Mr. Speaker: If it is a matter concerning a court of law and is sub judice, of course the Minister has no power.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Since Parliament gave self-government for internal affairs to Malta, is it not true that the Minister has no responsibility for internal affairs in Malta?

Mr. Drayson: May I ask the Minister what progress is being made in reviewing Press ordinances in the Island of Malta arising out of the suppression of newspaper bulletins?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS BROADCASTS

Mr. Frank McLeavy: asked the Postmaster-General if, before sending out broadcasts to foreign countries, Dominions or British dependencies, the British Broadcasting Corporation arrange in each case to have the broadcast relayed where it is possible to do so in these territories so that persons without long distance receiving sets can hear them; and if, in the case of dependencies, the broadcasts are relayed by loud speakers in public places so as to reach the majority of people who have not receiving sets.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The B.B.C. has no control over broadcasting organisations overseas, but the Corporation arranges whenever possible for its programmes to be rebroadcast by stations overseas, and also supplies them with recorded programmes through the Transcription Service. I understand that listening to public address systems or community wireless receivers takes place in many dependencies and is being extended.

Mr. McLeavy: Does my right hon. Friend think that British taxpayers should be called upon to pay for an unessential service, particularly in Dominions and dependencies which already have their own broadcasting service, and will he say why this duplication is necessary?

Mr. Paling: I should like to see that Question on the Order Paper.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the Postmaster-General take every step he can to ensure that broadcasting to foreign nationals is of a character less Left-wing than it is at present?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUB-POSTMASTERS (TERRITORIAL CAMPS)

Mr. Touche: asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements have been made to contribute to the cost of the sub-postmasters providing a substitute during the period they attend Territorial Army camps.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: This matter is still under consideration. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE, BRIDGEND

Mr. Hollis: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is a grave shortage of telephones in Bridgend, Glamorganshire; and for what reason Mr. Jack Powell, bookmaker, of 12, Dunraven Place, Bridgend, was recently granted three new lines.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that it is not possible at present to provide telephones for all applicants in Bridgend; some are held up through lack of line plant and others owing to the heavy pressure of essential work now on hand. No lines have been provided for Mr. Powell, but I understand that he has arranged with certain subscribers to use their lines.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there an official list of priorities arranged in occupations which applies equally to all exchanges?

Mr. Paling: There is a list of priorities which goes to all exchanges throughout the Kingdom.

Mr. Nicholson: Could the House be informed of the details of this list?

Mr. Paling: I will look into that but I think that the House has been informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Court Martial Sentences, Palestine

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Defence if he will consider granting an amnesty in all cases arising out of operations in Palestine.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to men sentenced by courts-martial. If so, the answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Proctor: Does not the Minister of Defence think that in view of all the circumstances this would be an appropriate time for a generous gesture, and that it would receive great support from the party which is supporting him?

Mr. Alexander: In most of the cases in connection with Palestine the sentences have already run out. If we were


to adopt this principle in respect of the remaining cases the same question would surely be raised in regard to other theatres as well as Palestine, and there would be no end to it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say how many persons now remain in detention and in what proportion of these cases the offences for which the persons were sentenced were offences against regulations involving no act of violence of any kind and regulations outside the ordinary realm of law?

Mr. Alexander: I answer only about cases which are tried by court martial. I could give figures if my hon. Friend put down a Question.

Requisitioned Goods, Malaya (Compensation)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Defence why Service Departments in Malaya are refusing to pay compensation for certain goods requisitioned in 1941–42, on the ground that they were requisitioned for purposes of denial; what right of appeal there is against such decisions; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander: The Service Departments do not accept liability for the payment of compensation in respect of goods requisitioned for denial from the enemy which are regarded as falling within the category of ordinary war damage losses. Claims in respect of such cases would be dealt with by the civil Government, and in this connection I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 23rd March last. Any decision of a Service Department, if regarded as unacceptable, can be tested in the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Distribution

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why there are better supplies of food in the North, especially of butter, bacon, eggs and cheese, in accordance with the particulars which have been sent to him; and what steps is he taking to ensure a better distribution of the food available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): No preference is shown to any particular area in the distribution of rationed foods. Butter, bacon, eggs and cheese are distributed to retailers throughout the country on a basis of the number of customers registered with them. Inquiries which have been made in the area about which the hon. Member has sent me particulars, have revealed no evidence of preferential distribution.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend when he will realise that there is no food shortage, and that the shortages and queues are due to bulk purchasing and maldistribution owing to State control? The right hon. Lady cannot answer that one.

Fats and Sugar (Farm Workers)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food whether he will grant an increase of the fats and sugar ration to farm workers in the period 1st May to 30th September to offset in some part the effects of the cut in the meat ration in the period when they will be doing heavy work over long hours.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. I think that the reduction must be borne by all sections of the community.

Mr. Baker White: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the cut in the meat ration will fall most heavily on the very people who have to produce the meat?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member must also realise that if we gave extra fats and sugar to agricultural workers the same concession would be demanded by workers in the heavy industries.

Mr. Drayson: Would the right hon. Lady consider adopting towards agricultural workers the same system which applies to coal miners—that they should be permitted to retain a certain proportion of the food they produce?

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is growing feeling on this matter, and that the farm-workers themselves feel that as they produce so high a proportion of the nation's food, they should have some further preference to enable them to do their work to their own and the nation's satisfaction?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Member must remember that farm workers get extra allowances during certain seasonal operations which other workers do not get.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If the additional fats and sugar to farm workers would give rise to a similar demand from the miners, would not the right hon. Lady give to the farm workers a meat ration similar to that which the miners get?

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Member prepared to ask the agricultural workers to sacrifice their 12 oz. of cheese?

Nigerian Oils and Oilseeds

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what profit was made by His Majesty's Government from the sale of Nigerian oils and oilseeds in the year ended 31st January, 1947.

Dr. Summerskill: No separate figures of profits or losses are maintained on imports of oils and fats from particular sources of supply. During the financial year ended 31st March, 1947, the Ministry of Food made a profit of £670,353, or just under 1 per cent. of total sales, on all its transactions in oils and fats.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the profits for the succeeding year amounted to £14 million, and that they have been separately calculated? Will she inquire into this bulk selling and see what were the actual profits in the previous year?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member must realise that when we are engaged in transactions on this large scale we cannot always break even., It is quite possible that next year there will be a loss which will offset the profits which have been earned.

Mr. Turton: Have the profits from these transactions gone to the West African producers or are they retained by the Ministry of Food?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly they are retained by the Ministry of Food. I have just said that they amount to under 1 per cent.

Oranges

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to increase the supply of oranges.

Dr. Summerskill: The present shortage is seasonal and will, I hope, disappear as soon as the summer season begins.

Tasmanian Apples

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Food the average weight of Tasmanian apples imported into this country in the three full years 1936, 1937, 1938, and the average weight in the years 1946, 1947. 1948.

Dr. Summerskill: Official import returns do not show the quantities of apples received from the individual Australian States. The average annual import of apples from Australia for the three years 1936 to 1938 was 77,057 tons and for the three years 1946 to 1948 was 26,203 tons.

Mr. Butcher: Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that she is doing all she can to stimulate this very valuable import at the present time?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point, but our difficulty is that there is a shortage of refrigerated tonnage. The available tonnage is being used for meat.

Carrots

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that production of carrots is sufficient to meet demand, he will terminate control.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend will shortly be discussing with growers and traders whether the time has now come to relax control.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of when an announcement on this subject is likely to be made?

Dr. Summerskill: As soon as possible, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the date.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food the total tonnage of the 1948 crop of carrots found surplus to human requirements which is being sold by his Department for stock feeding; how many tons now remain on offer; and why these surplus carrots were not cleared in February and March when they would have been of more value to farmers than at the present time when the grass is growing.

Dr. Summerskill: Sixty-four thousand tons of the 125,000 tons of carrots not needed for human consumption are still available for stockfeeding. These carrots have been on offer since 1st January, but farmers apparently preferred to buy potatoes for their animals.

Mr. Hurd: Surely, if the Minister knew of this very heavy tonnage of surplus carrots he should have pushed their disposal much earlier, at Christmas time or before, so that they could have been some use for stock feeding.

Dr. Summerskill: We did circularise all merchants in the first week in January.

Mr. Hurd: But the Ministry have only started advertising them now.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Lady realise that one of the difficulties in this matter has been movement, and tint the Ministry have concentrated on moving potatoes and left the carrots to rot?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in many parts of the country it is completely unknown that carrots are still available, and that in answer to requests, merchants say that they cannot get them.

Dr. Summerskill: I can only repeat that we circularised merchants in the first week in January; and we advertised in the farming papers in March.

Mr. Hudson: But we are now in April, and people have forgotten what the Ministry advertised in January.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot help it if they cannot read.

Mr. Dye: If these carrots cannot be used for stock feeding purposes at once, will my right hon. Friend see that they are dried and thus preserved for future use as animal feedingstuffs?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, we are preserving them as far as possible.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what is the cost involved in disposing of his Department's stocks of surplus carrots at 40s. a ton; and what is the tonnage and value of carrots imported during the 1948–49 season.

Dr. Summerskill: The net cost to the Ministry of disposing of surplus carrots bought under the guarantee to growers is on average about £9 per ton. According to the Trade and Navigation Accounts 168 tons of carrots to the value of £12,373 were imported between 1st October, 1948. and 31st March, 1949.

Mr. Hurd: Does that mean that the taxpayer is to expend about half a million pounds on dealing with this surplus of carrots, while at the same time we are finding foreign exchange to buy imported carrots?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I do not recall that the hon. Gentleman ever objected to this Government guarantee to the farmers. In fact, he has always accepted it willingly. If that is so, the first part of the supplementary question does not arise—

Mr. Hurd: It does.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly not. Hawing given this guarantee to the farmers we must, of course, honour it, and that will cost money. So far as the second part of the supplementary question is concerned, that is something which cannot be said to compete with this particular commodity. This is the new carrot which is now retailing at something like 10d. to 1s. per lb., whereas the old carrot is retailing at a maximum price of 2d.

Mr. Hurd: Why did not the Minister offer these carrots earlier in the season when he could have got more than £2 per ton instead of charging the taxpayer for them?

Dr. Summerskill: I have already said that we have done so.

Sugar (Bulk Importation)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether it is the intention of the Government in future to encourage the importation of sugar loose in bulk instead of in bags so as to secure a saving in cost by the use of mechanical grabs and an additional saving in the cost of jute bags.

Dr. Summerskill: The report on the first experimental bulk shipment of sugar has not yet been completed. Until we know the results of this experiment, we are not able to assess the advantages of bulk importation.

Mr. De la Bère: Do the Government fully understand the enormous saving in shipping, apart from the advantages which have been pointed out in the Question; and will they make quite sure that they are not put off by any people who are not so well informed as are the people in this House?

Dr. Summerskill: I am never put off.

Colonel Haughton: Can the right hon. Lady say what is the attitude of the trade unions concerned to this form of discharging ships carrying sugar?

Dr. Summerskill: No Sir, I certainly could not without consulting the trade unions. There will be a report on the question, and no doubt the workers will be asked to give any information they can on the matter.

Stored Feedingstuffs, Kimbolton

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of grain, cattle cake and other feedingstuffs have been stored at Kimbolton Aerodrome, Huntingdonshire, for longer than four months; and whether he will make a statement as to his policy for disposing of the commodities placed in that store.

Dr. Summerskill: On 23rd April the quantities were 492 tons of maize; 554 tons of barley; 182 tons of oats, and 141 tons of cattle cake. These will be issued from store in the normal course of releases for consumption.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this practice of holding foodstuffs in store is a very wasteful one, that at a time when local farmers and others are badly needing them they are being consumed to some extent by rats and mice and other vermin, and will she look into this matter further with a view to avoiding such waste?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should generalise in that way. If he cares to give detailed information I will look into it. He has already written about this aerodrome. He has put a Question down, and we have made inquiries and find no sign of deterioration at all.

Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. Lady agree to a representative of her Ministry

accompanying representatives of the farming industry and myself on an inspection of this and other similar premises in the area?

Dr. Summerskill: Representatives of my Ministry are always inspecting these places.

Mr. Dye: Is it not necessary to retain in store sufficient feedingstuffs to meet the requirements of our rapidly increasing herds and flocks between now and harvest? Is it not a fact that the depredations of rats are far less in the stores than in the stacks on the farms?

Dr. Summerskill: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had no stocks of feedingstuffs, we should be vulnerable to attack.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (STUDENTS)

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship caused to conscripted Service personnel who have been accepted for admission into teacher training colleges or universities in September next, but who are not due for release until a few weeks after the date due for admission; and whether he will consider release in suitable cases on the applicant undertaking to continue military training with the Territorial Army.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 25th January to the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) which stated that
intending students who were called up before the end of July, 1948, and who, but for the general slow-down in releases would have been released in time to start their studies this autumn, will be allowed early release if applied for by universities, technical colleges, or teachers' training colleges."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 25th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 112.]

Mr. Hale: Will the Parliamentary Secretary convey that to the Ministry of Education?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that this information is very well known. It has been circulated to all the vice-chancellors, and all the university authorities are aware of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker. Questions today have now occupied exactly half-an-hour. Would it not, therefore, be suitable to review the Standing Orders and bring back again the peace-time custom, so as to give a further opportunity to answer Questions that have been passed over owing to the temporary absence of the Members concerned?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will realise that on the second day

after the Recess very few Questions are put down. I have no doubt that tomorrow we shall have our full complement. If the House wishes to change the ordinary custom about a second round that is a matter for the House. I cannot give directives on that matter although I believe that it is not part of our Standing Order. It was accepted by the House, but, of course, if it is wished to make a change through the usual channels, I shall comply with the wishes of the House.

IRON AND STEEL BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.


[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

New Clause.—(GENERAL DUTY OF THE CORPORATION.)

It shall be the general duty of the Corporation so to exercise their powers as—


(a)
to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products of the activities specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act, and to secure that those products are available in such quantities, and are of such types, qualities and sizes, and are available at such prices, as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands of the persons who use those products for manufacturing purposes and to further the public interest in all respects: and


(b)
to avoid showing undue preference to, and exercising unfair discrimination against, any such persons or any class thereof in the supply and price of those products, but without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which those products are supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations or from the public interest. [Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.7 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This first new Clause is in substitution for Clause 3 of the Bill as it now stands. As hon. and right hon. Members who were on the Committee will appreciate, the Government have throughout been most anxious to meet as far as possible all the points which were put forward by the Opposition, so long as the general framework of the Bill was preserved. We were also very anxious to meet the arguments put forward by representative bodies who approached the Government about various points which were worrying them. This new Clause is an attempt to meet the criticisms and suggestions made during the Second Reading Debate about this important Clause, which lays down the general duty of the Corporation. It meets to some extent the Amendments put down on the Order Paper by the Opposition during the Committee stage. It meets, I believe fully, the fears and worries which were disturbing the main bodies of consumers of iron and steel.
The Clause as now drafted is sound, and sets out in a more precise way than did the original Clause what the general duty of the Corporation shall be. The major change is in paragraph (b), where it is specifically stated that the Corporation must avoid undue preference. During my Second Reading speech I stated that we did not anticipate—in fact we were confident—that the Corporation would not exercise undue preference between

one consumer and another, and if by any chance they did so the Government have ample powers to stop them. Nevertheless, fears continued to be expressed by various people, including some of the main consuming industries that such undue preference might be shown. To make abundantly clear what Parliament intends we have inserted this provision in paragraph (b) in words which are sound and practicable and acceptable to the representatives of the main bodies of consumers. I therefore commend this new Clause to the House, and shall subsequently move the deletion of the present Clause 3.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Let me acknowledge straight away that we regard this new Clause as a considerable improvement on the original words used. I do not think that I need detain the House about paragraph (a). But under paragraph (b) the Minister has added words which are not, for example, in the similar Section of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I refer to the words:
…without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which those products are supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations…
So far I am with him, but then it goes on:
…or from the public interest.
Those words enable the Minister to do almost anything. One of the most naive contentions which the Minister has put upon these matters is that the Corporation are to be the sole judge of the public interest. As a matter of fact, legis-


lation about almost anything would be very simple if one could always be sure where the public interest lay. These words:
…or from the public interest
would enable the Minister to ride very wide on the matter of preferences.
The Minister no doubt will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the words are there because some undue preference may be required for the export trade. In trying to cover that point, I consider that he has unnecessarily widened the Clause. We on this side of the House will not divide against the Second Reading of this Clause which we regard as an improvement on the original, but at the same time I think that the words:
…or from the public interest
are too wide. When we come to discuss the Amendments, if they are called, the point will arise again. Perhaps I had better confine my remarks to saying that this is an improvement and that we shall not divide the House. The points about which I have given notice will arise on the Amendments.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I wish to ask the Minister if he will throw a little light upon the various mental processes that have been gone through before this Clause reached its present form. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we had no opportunity in Standing Committee of discussing Clause 3 owing to the falling of the Guillotine. At a later stage, when considering a new Clause put forward by the Opposition, the Minister gave an undertaking that he would endeavour to incorporate that portion which is comprised in paragraph (b). In the notice given on 28th March of the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move, paragraph (a) was in the same form as it is now. But paragraph (b) which he then proposed to put before the House read:
to avoid showing undue preference to, and exercising undue discrimination against, any consumer or class of consumers in the supply and price of those products.
At that stage he was not including the further sentence which appears in the present new Clause, but there was this proviso:
Provided that the duty of the Corporation under this section shall not be enforceable by proceedings before any court or tribunal.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman considers most carefully

before he puts a new Clause upon the Paper. I should like to know why upon the first consideration it appeared in the form to which I have just referred, and why he has added this extra proviso and deleted that with regard to the duty of the Corporation not being enforceable by proceedings before any court or tribunal. We are endeavouring to deal with something which I presume is the considered opinion of the Minister. I have no doubt that the form of words tabled on 28th March was the considered opinion of the Minister also. It would be interesting to know why there is such disparity between the new Clause now before us and the one suggested earlier.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Could the Minister give a little more explanation about the words in the second line:
to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products.
These words first appeared in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, and at that time a great deal of discussion took place upon what the Minister thought was meant by the term, "efficient and economical." The Secretary of State for War, who was then the Minister of Fuel and Power, said on 12th February, 1946:
I am bound to say that if the Board are able and are competent, they are bound to be prudent and they are bound to safeguard the community against waste."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 12th February, 1946; c. 994.]
Since then we have had some examples of how these boards of nationalised industries consider that they are dealing with waste. I can give instances where the moisture content of coal has gone up by 4 or 5 per cent. compared with previous allocations. I do not think that that is being economical or efficient, yet that is taking place under these very same words in a previous nationalisation statute. I would also refer the Minister to the Electricity Act where the same words appear. Yet we find that the cost of electricity has gone up considerably in a great number of cases. In Sheffield it has increased by nearly 60 per cent.
Does the Minister consider that the words, "efficient and economical" cover those large increases in prices and the great deterioration in quality? If he is satisfied that that is the best practice, I certainly am not. We should tighten up


this wording. Up to now, these words have not proved efficient in making the Boards carry out their duties. I am not satisfied that the explanation given by other Ministers of the meaning of the term, "efficient and economical" is satisfactory. We should not pass this Clause until we have an explanation from the Minister of what he means by the term.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the powers given to the Corporation under this new Clause supersede the powers the Minister now has of allocating steel to certain industries? I put that question because of the attitude of the Ministry towards the supply of steel for steel houses. In the Report of the Department of Health for Scotland this year we are told that the supply of steel for this purpose has completely ceased. We in Scotland have a grave grievance. We believe that the supply should be continued. In this new Clause there are the words:
to further the public interest in all respects.
I should like to know whether the Corporation will have power to secure a more reasonable allocation of steel for the places where it is most needed.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The Minister made a very bland speech—one which we always get on nationalisation Measures—in which he said that he was confident that he had settled the worries of the consumers. If he is really confident of that, he is confident of something which is most remarkable. If you will look at these words, Mr. Speaker, you will see why people are so extremely worried. This Clause lays a duty on the Corporation to supply steel at such prices and qualities
as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands of the persons who use those products…
We have examples of what is happening under nationalisation. For instance, there is the example given by the Chairman of the Cunard Company last week in which he pointed out that bunker coal in New York is 61s. 3d. a ton and in London it is 98s. a ton. I should like to know from the Minister whether the Corporation would think that they had carried out this Clause if there was in their prices such a disparity as is now evident in the prices of coal produced in

this country compared with world prices. If he is satisfied about that, all I can say is that no consumers of steel will be satisfied. If he thinks that history is going to repeat itself, we may as well pack up world trade altogether.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May 1, by leave of the House, answer one or two of the points which have been raised? The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) dislikes the words "efficient and economical supply," and suggests that they should be tightened up. I do not think he can have read very carefully or followed fully the proceedings during the Committee Stage, because those words were not in the original Clause put down by the Government, but they were in the Amendment put down by the Opposition, and it was in order to meet the views of the Opposition on this point that I incorporated the words of their Amendment into this new Clause. It is strange for them now to complain of words which I have only incorporated because the Opposition wanted me to do so.

Mr. P. Roberts: I was not complaining of the words. I wanted to know what interpretation the Minister put upon them. These words have been in other nationalisation statutes of which we know, and what I wanted to know was what the Minister understands by these words now that he has incorporated them in is own new Clause.

Mr. Strauss: I think that is a point which should be further pursued on Third Reading, and perhaps hon. Members of the Opposition, who suggested these words, will say why they wanted them incorporated in the Bill. That duty rests firmly upon them.
I can assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that this Clause will in no way interfere with any steel allocation scheme operated by the Government. The allocations under the present scheme are the Government's responsibility, and that responsibility will not pass from the Government. The third point raised was on the question of a possible disparity of prices which it is suggested might arise, and which worried the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). One cannot say what disparity of prices may or may not arise, but the duty is put upon the Corporation to see


that prices are as reasonable and fair as can be. The hon. Member will realise that if the prices did appear to be out of line with world prices, there is ample machinery through the Consumers' Council and through Parliament, because the Minister has a responsibility here to see that those prices are not allowed to go too high. I do not think that we need worry about that matter under this new Clause.

Mr. Jennings: The Minister has still left the interpretation of these words very vague. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to pay some attention to the fact that, in regard to other nationalised industries and particularly coal, the quality has got worse and the price has gone up. Is that his interpretation of the economical running of the industry, because, if so, it is not mine? If we take the case of electricity prices, the same thing exists, and I do not think there is an hon. Member in the House who has not had complaints of the fact that electricity charges have risen very steeply. Only this morning I received a letter from the chairman of an Area Gas Board telling me that he is willing to answer any questions I should like to put, and informing me that it may be that, in some cases and some parts of the country, gas charges are likely to go up. If this is what the Minister understands by nationalisation, let him say so openly and tell the House that prices are likely to go up.

Mr. Michison: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I received a similar letter, and I wonder if his said, as did mine, that that rise in prices would have happened nationalisation or no nationalisation?

Mr. Jennings: I am used to that phrase, because when the product of any nationalised industry goes up in price, it is always stated that it would have gone up under private enterprise.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that the Liberal National Party have said that the price had gone up even before the product was nationalised?

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member must not blame me for what the Liberal National Party says. I am speaking for myself alone, and I say without hesitation

that, if the nationalisation of industry which we have experienced up to now is any criterion of what is going to happen to iron and steel, the consumers of iron and steel can now look forward to increased prices, poorer quality and less quantity, and if that is what is understood by the economical running of the industry, then it is up to the Minister to say so. Since the Minister has accepted the words suggested by the Opposition, he must have some idea of his own interpretation of them, and I want him to tell the House what he understands by them. It may be a very different thing from the interpretation that we put upon those words. If the industry is not economically run in the true sense and in the best interests of trade and industry, I say that the nationalised industry is already doomed to destruction.

Mr. Charles Williams: I was delighted to hear that the Minister had accepted the inclusion of the words "efficient and economical supply," and I am glad that he has had the courage to allow some of the ideas of the Opposition to percolate into this Bill. I was not in the least surprised that he was quite unable to explain them to the House at this point, which would seem to be the only point at which he could do it properly, or that he could not say what is the meaning of those words. If he had been able to do so, he would have been much better briefed than usual, because every one of us, and particularly hon. Members on the other side, know that, in the running of the nationalised industries so far, the last thing which the Ministers have ever done has been to run them either economically or efficiently. I thank the Minister for the bland way in which he explained his ignorance and lack of knowledge of the meaning of these words. This is merely another illustration of the way in which this Government are plunging into these difficult matters and trying to run one of the most efficient and economical industries of this country into complete inefficiency and complete incompetence.

Mr. William Shepherd: I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the new Clause would dispose of the fears of consumers. I do not know any consumers who are satisfied with this Clause which allows such power in the hands of the Steel Corporation, and I


think we should try to seek a more desirable form of words. What are these words in paragraph (a) but pious hopes? What sanction is there behind any of these aspirations? What is going to happen after a year or so? This Board will go exactly the same way as any other nationalised industry under a State monopoly. It does not matter a tinker's cuss what motto is stuck on the wall of the State monopoly; it is going to go exactly the same way, whatever the motto. While we seek to do what we can to tie the Corporation up, we fully realise that there are inherent evils in State monopolies, and we should be very mindful of such aspirations as are contained in the wording of this new Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the sanction behind this new Clause was the sanction of Parliamentary control through the Minister. I should like to ask him a simple though I think not very easy question. Is it his expectation that questions put on this point would be in order in the normal and ordinary way, or would such questions be written off as being attempts to inquire into day-to-day administration, and therefore a matter for the Corporation and not the Minister? It was the Minister who advanced the argument in favour of the new Clause that there would be the sanction of Parliamentary inquiry, and I think he owes it to the House to tell us whether he expects that such questions would ordinarily be in order.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: should like to put one or two points to the Opposition. Is it not the case that in pre-war days the big steel firms of this country showed undue discrimination in regard to prices and supplies? That is one of the points which has been dealt with in paragraph (b). With regard to the words in paragraph (a), the Opposition have accused the Minister of displaying his ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject; but when hon. Members opposite continue to say that they do not understand what is meant by the words:
 "to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products…

they display their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject. Is it not obvious that so long as this industry was left in the hands of private people and this House or any public body had no control over it, or any say in it—

Mr. Lyttelton: I wish to intervene only for a moment to correct the hon. Member on this point. Since the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which was set up in 1934, regulated all the prices to the steel industry and the Ministry of Supply, through the Iron and Steel Board, have done it since that Committee ceased to exist, I think the hon. Member is stretching his imagination rather more than usual when he says that there is no public control over the privately-owned steel industry.

Mr. Scollan: It is perfectly true that the consumers of the products of this industry did have to come to this House and lobby hon. Members in order to get a particular Measure passed by Parliament to give them some protection against the people who are now squealing about nationalisation. That is perfectly true; I admit that, and I am not stretching my imagination. The reason they came and asked successive Tory and Liberal Governments for that protection was because of the rapacity and the unconcealed greed of the steelmakers of Great Britain. In the first place, therefore, we must not forget that this was only a section of an international cartel which agreed on prices and on the markets to be divided among them. They agreed that if people wanted certain commodities produced by the steel industry they would have to go to particular makers to get them. Consequently, the consumers had to compel Tory and Liberal Governments to give them some protection against the steel manufacturers of their own country. Now the Opposition say that they do not understand the meaning of the words:
to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products…
As a matter of fact, if the steelmakers of Great Britain had had the welfare of the nation at heart and had entered into competition with other countries, we should have had our 14 million tons of steel in 1935 instead of in 1949. That could have been done quite easily, but they did not do it. Why? The answer is that the only things about which they


were concerned were the international cartels, their monopoly, and their own greed. Therefore, to say now that they do not understand what this Clause means shows that they are either too stupid or too naïve.

Mr. Mikardo: In my short membership of this House, I have many times been grateful for the fact that I am not a Minister, but never more markedly than this afternoon because, in considering the comparatively simple new Clause in the course of this very short Debate, my right hon. Friend has been asked by the Opposition to do four quite different things. Some hon. Members opposite have merely asked for a definition of certain terms used in the Clause. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), unsatisfied with the definition, wants these terms to be got rid of and replaced by something else. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) wants no more than to tie up the Corporation, to use his own words, which is apparently his method of setting the people free. Finally, the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked the Minister to give a Ruling on a point of Order which, I understand, Mr. Speaker, only you would be competent to rule upon. I repeat that I am more than ever grateful for the fact that I am not the Minister in charge of this Bill, and that I have not to deal with such a disorganised and disparate Opposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Osbert Peake: beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 1, after "powers," to insert:
and of each subsidiary of the Corporation so to act.
After that little preliminary canter, perhaps we may now get back to an endeavour to improve this very indifferent Bill. The new Clause proposed by the Minister purports to do two things; it purports, in paragraph (a), to replace Clause 3 as it at present stands in the Bill, and in paragraph (b) to deal with the suggestion made by the Opposition in the Committee stage regarding undue preference. But the opening words of the Clause are:

It shall be the general duty of the Corporation so to exercise their powers as"—
to produce these two objects; first,
to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products,
etc., and, secondly,
to avoid showing undue preference to, and exercising unfair discrimination against…
In order to make this Clause effective, we propose to insert after the word "powers" in the first line, the words:
and of each subsidiary of the Corporation so to act.
The opening words would then read:
It shall be the general duty of the Corporation so to exercise their powers and of each subsidiary of the Corporation"—
that is, of course, the 106 companies whose names are set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill—
so to act
as to carry out the objects described in the Clause. Hon. Members will, of course, want to know what are the powers of the Corporation which it is
the general duty of the Corporation so to exercise
as to produce these results. But hon. Members who have not been with us throughout the Committee stage might, in their simplicity, imagine that the powers of the Corporation were those set out in Clause 2 of the Bill, which bears the title "Powers of the Corporation." However, they would he mistaken, because the Minister has now decided virtually to scrap Clause 2 of the Bill as well as Clause 3, and, in order to find out what are now to be the powers of the Corporation, hon. Members will have to turn to pages 1668 and 1669 of the Amendment Paper and look at the marshalled list of Amendments set out thereon to find what are the words which the Minister now proposes to introduce in place of the two first subsections of Clause 2 as printed for the Report stage.
The Minister's new Clause makes a complete revolution in the proposed powers of the Corporation. To put the matter in a single sentence, it now appears that the main, if not the only, power of the Corporation is to act as a holding company. During the Committee stage, we had a great deal of discussion upon the question whether the Corporation were themselves to become producers of iron and steel, and so forth, or whether


they were merely to act in the capacity of an investment trust company. It now appears from a study of the proposed new Clause on page 1668, and a comparison of that Clause with Clause 2 as it at present stands in the Bill, that the Minister has now finally come round to the view that the main, and probably only, object of the Corporation should be to act as an investment trust company, to hold the shares of the 106 companies whose names are set out in the Third Schedule, to exercise pressure upon those companies only by virtue of being the sole shareholder in them, and to leave those companies to carry on their operations in the normal way, subject only to any guidance they may obtain on questions of policy from the sole shareholder, which will be the Iron and Steel Corporation. In order to carry hon. Members with me and to show the immense change made in the powers of the Corporation by the Minister's new proposal, I would ask them, first, to look at Clause 2 as it now stands and to read the opening words, which are:
…the Corporation shall have power to carry on any of the activities specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act"—
and those, broadly speaking, are the production of iron ore and steel—
and any other activities which any publicly-owned company…is for the time being authorised by its memorandum of association…to carry on:
All lawyers know that in drafting a memorandum of association one makes it cover every conceivable possibility and that a modern memorandum of association contains powers to do absolutely anything. The original proposal in the Bill was that the Corporation should enjoy the same powers as those which each of its 106 subsidiaries enjoyed by virtue of their memoranda of association.
If hon. Members will now look at the proposals of the Minister, which are to be substituted for the first subsection of Clause 2, they will see that they are as follow:
The Corporation shall have power—

(a) to hold such interests in companies as vest in them under Part II of this Act…
(b) to form, or take part in forming, any company for the sole or main purpose of the carrying on by the company of any activities which any publicly-owned company"


can carry on—
(c) to exercise all rights conferred by the holding of interests in companies"—
—that is to say, to exercise what is the ordinary power of the shareholder.
Under subsection (2) of the Minister's proposed new Clause:
The Corporation shall have power—
(a) to conduct research…
and
to provide for the publicly-owned companies…services which…can conveniently be provided as common services…
The second power of the Corporation, as now proposed, is to conduct research upon a joint basis and to furnish common services if it is Convenient so to do, and it is only under subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause that
The Corporation shall have power…to carry on any other activities which…any publicly-owned company is authorised…to carry on.
Let hon. Members note that the Corporation can go outside the powers laid down for holding shares and for conducting research and providing common services only with the consent in writing of the Minister. Only as an exceptional matter and with express Ministerial consent can the Corporation enter into any direct trading operation of any sort or kind. It is for that reason that we seek, in order to make the new Clause now before the House effective, to make it binding not only upon the Corporation but upon the 106 companies whose names appear in the Third Schedule and the many others, hundreds I think, of subsidiaries of this Third Schedule number, because it is obvious, for example, that it is no good laying down a general duty upon the Corporation to exercise its powers so as to avoid "undue preference to" any class of consumer if all the Corporation is to do, in effect, is to be an investment trust company and to hold shares in these 106 companies. Clearly, the obligation as regards "showing undue preference" or "exercising unfair discrimination" should and must be laid upon the 106 companies which will actually be conducting the trade and supplying the products.

Mr. Scollan: I want to be clear on this point. We quite understand the change to be made by the Corporation becoming a holding investment company, but I cannot understand how the Amendment


would affect subsidiary companies. We cannot make them holding companies within themselves.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I am sorry. The hon. Member has not quite followed the argument. Under the Bill we have the Iron and Steel Corporation. The 106 companies whose names appear in the Third Schedule—diminished, I think, from 106 by about half a dozen exclusions made by the Minister in recent months—will become 100 per cent. subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Corporation, and our Amendment now before the House seeks to impose upon them these obligations in regard to promoting
the efficient and economical supply of the products"—
and securing—
that those products are available in such quantities, and are of such types, qualities and sizes…as may seem to the Corporation best calculated…to further the public interest.

Mr. John Lewis: I take it that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is not using the word "subsidiary" as it is used in industrial circles, because a subsidiary of a company is a company in which the holding or parent company has a majority of the shareholding, whereas in this case the same set-up does not exist.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. In point of fact, the only companies whose shares will be held by the Iron and Steel Corporation are the companies whose names appear in the Third Schedule to the Bill and in point of fact, also, the Iron and Steel Corporation will hold 100 per cent. of all the shares of those companies. It is quite clear, therefore, that the word "subsidiary" in our Amendment will apply to the companies whose names appear in the Third Schedule to the Bill.
I submit with confidence to the reason of the House that it is not much use putting obligations upon the Corporation
to promote the efficient and economical supply
of those products and to put obligations upon the Corporation
to avoid…undue preference and…unfair discrimination…

when the Corporation itself is now to be merely an investment trust company holding the shares for these various 100 or more producing companies. I submit with confidence that these obligations which the Minister clearly considers desirable and necessary—since he has promoted the Clause—should be laid upon those who will be in a position to carry them out and not merely upon the Iron and Steel Corporation, whose only effective power will have to be exercised by virtue of its holding the shares and holding all the voting power at the annual general meetings of these 106 companies.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I suggest that this Amendment is quite illogical. We are, under this Bill, setting up a new body, the Corporation, and in doing so Parliament must, of course, say what its powers and duties are to be. We are not interfering with the companies which are to come under public ownership; they remain ordinary public companies with normal obligations and the normal duties laid upon them by their articles and memoranda of association. There is no direct relationship between Parliament and these publicly-owned companies—none whatsoever. If we placed duties upon these companies, therefore, we should have no direct method of seeing that those duties were carried out. What we are doing is setting up a new body and imposing certain duties upon this new body.
By far the most important of the duties which we impose upon the Corporation are those derived from the power which it will possess, as sole shareholder in these companies, to order, broadly speaking, their affairs—to see that there is reorganisation and rationalisation, and to carry out those economy measures we have talked about on previous occasions. In that responsibility the Corporation will have full powers over these companies—not in matters of detail, of course, in which it will not want to interfere—but in all matters of general importance. We can, surely, logically give these duties only to this new body which we are setting up under this Bill and not to the various subsidiary and sub-subsidiary bodies with their continuing directorships, whose shares the Corporation are to hold.
We must tell the big holding body what Parliament expects it to do, and,


therefore, we give it powers under Clause 2 to do certain things, and under the new Clause general duties and instructions which we want it to carry out. It will be the Corporation's responsibility; and it, and not the publicly-owned companies, will be responsible to the Minister and Parliament. This Corporation will be responsible for carrying out the duties which are imposed upon it, and it will have to see that the various companies whose shares it holds carry out the general duties which Parliament imposes—though these will be implemented, of course, through the companies whose shares it holds. Therefore, it is wholly right to put the responsibility on the Corporation, and it would be wholly wrong to put the responsibility on the many subsidiaries.
I am not quite sure what the word "subsidiary" covers here. I think it would cover much more than the 100 or so companies in the Third Schedule. Even if it were only these companies, it would be quite wrong to put the duty on their boards of directors, with some of them, it may be, interpreting the directions laid down by Parliament in different ways, with, perhaps, considerable dislocation and difficulty as the result. There might be chaos. That is not the way to proceed here. The duty must be put on the body we are setting up to run the steel industry in the public interest. We are putting that duty on the Corporation. I think the wording, "general duty," is wise. As I say, it has been agreed by the representatives of the consumers.
It would be wholly wrong, I suggest therefore, to try to put this duty doubly on the Corporation and on those various different companies, with whom we shall have no relationship whatsoever, over whom we shall have no direct control, and over whose behaviour neither the Minister nor Parliament will be able to exercise supervision, except through the Corporation. The Corporation must have the power, and alone must have the duty, of carrying out Parliament's intentions. I suggest, therefore, that we should reject this Amendment, and that, indeed: it is wholly illogical and unnecessary.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have seldom heard a more extraordinary amalgam of arguments than this to which we have just

listened. I pick out the first—"Quite impossible for the boards of 100 companies to interpret the obligations laid upon them by this Amendment." Of course, it is perfectly easy, in the Minister's opinion, for the boards of 100 companies to understand those general duties if they are told them by the Corporation. That argument does not hold water for a minute.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if I did not make the point quite clear. The Corporation will be able by direction and discussion to elaborate and set out in detail what it expects these various companies to do. It will be in relationship with these publicly owned companies. Parliament will not. The Minister will not.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is the second tier to the argument, to which I am now coming. The first part of the argument, to which I have just referred, has no validity at all. Of course, if a general duty is laid down by Parliament for the 100 companies, it will require, no doubt, some interpretation, and the companies may require some help from the Corporation; but to argue that because the duty is laid upon the actually operating companies that smelt iron ore and produce steel to carry out these provisions with no discrimination, they will not understand the duty unless it is laid upon them by the Corporation—to argue that they will have no understanding of a duty unless it is a general duty laid upon them by the Corporation—is to ask us to accept an argument of so tenuous a nature that I think that it is hardly worth discussion. I concede the Minister this, that it is quite clear that the 106 companies, in this relationship to one another which the Bill will cause, will have to have help from the Corporation, in the matter of exercising this duty. So much I give to him, but his main argument, to my mind, entirely falls to the ground.
The next contention that the Minister made was one of the most extraordinary I think I have heard—that Parliament has no relationship with the companies.

Mr. Strauss: No direct relationship.

Mr. Lyttelton: No direct relationship. Very good. There might well be solace for us on this side of the House if we had the least idea of what Parliamentary


control is to be exercised over the Corporation through the Minister. We met on all sides of the Committee acceptance of the fact that, whatever one may think about it, it is quite clear that the relations of this House of Commons with these nationalised corporations is still—shall I say as politely as possible for the benefit of the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan)?—at least in a high state of fluidity. Nobody knows how far it will be possible to say to the Minister that on 15th July the prices of angles or of fluxes are too high. Nobody knows. I personally am optimistic enough—or foolish enough, if hon. Members prefer the term—to believe that one day we shall have to have that duty, but it certainly has not been worked out yet.
What the Minister says is, "We shall see that one day Parliament will exercise sore control through me of this Corporation, and that some day that Corporation, having been supervised in an uncertain manner by the House of Commons, will work in another way, which I do not propose to specify because the House of Commons is not concerned with its investments; and the Corporation will then be able to secure that the general duty that the Clause tries to lay down is in fact carried out." But everybody knows that this kind of cantilever system of responsibility will certainly not work, and the only control which Parliament, under the Minister's proposal, will one day get over these matters will be that of looking into all the various things that will have happened—perhaps, as much as six months after they have occurred.
We are to be put into that position of locking a very uncertain stable door long after the horse has gone. I really honestly think the Minister has made a great mistake in not accepting this Amendment. Agreed, that the exercise of these non-discriminatory powers is a matter of some delicacy when there are 106 companies concerned. However, why not lay upon them the duty directly? Thus we should get nearer to the centre of events than we are allowed to under the Minister's proposals.

Mr. Scollan: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question? He wants to amend the new Clause by bringing in "each subsidiary of the Corporation." Would he not extend his proposal by including in the

Amendment, after the word "Corporation," the words "and all the managements and employees thereof," and so include all, right down to the fellows chucking the coal into the furnace or chucking the steel into the furnace? Obviously, the thing is ridiculous.

Mr. J. Lewis: I always listen very carefully to the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) because, although I disagree with his political views, I think it is generally accepted on both sides of the House that he knows something about industrial organisation. What I think is most annoying about his remarks today is that they involve the conclusion that no one on this side knows anything at all about industrial organisation. Therefore, he has put forward an argument which he knows in his own sphere of operations is quite without foundation. As he said, when asking my right hon. Friend to do certain things, private monopolists, such as Imperial Chemical Industries and Unilever, have very large shareholdings dispersed throughout the country. These private monopolies from time to time have purchased interests in other companies. They have literally hundreds of subsidiaries spread throughout the country.
4.0 p.m.
The general policy of these subsidiaries is laid down by the parent company—by Imperial Chemical Industries—but no one is going to suggest that shareholders in I.C.I. have any direct relationship whatsoever with the shareholders of the subsidiary companies. In fact, the policy of the subsidiary companies is guided directly by the parent company, and exactly the same position obtains in the circumstances which we are now discussing. The Iron and Steel Corporation is the parent company and owns the shares in the subsidiary companies, and upon the Iron and Steel Corporation must be imposed those duties which it is expected that the subsidiary companies should carry out. This does not work in any other way in private enterprise, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should expect it to work in any other way in the case we are now discussing.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: When listening to the Minister's remarks, I wondered whether he had recently read his own Bill. He


appears to assume that Parliament has no power over publicly-owned companies, and that the only relationship that exists is between the Minister and Parliament and Parliament and the Corporation, and that, somehow, these publicly-owned companies are all in the blue. I would draw attention to the Clause in the Bill where there is directly laid down ministerial direction over public companies, and where actual legislation is foreshadowed by which Parliament directly intervenes with respect to these public companies.
Clause 18 states:
Where any company specified in the Third Schedule to this Act…has without the approval of the Minister made…payments of interest or dividend on any of its securities…
to various people, the Minister is given powers to intervene. Clause 21 states:
Where it appears to the Minister that any company specified in the Third Schedule"—
that is one of the publicly-owned companies—
does not fulfil the following condition…
then certain consequences result. The Third Schedule itself lays down the various public companies which are to be nationalised and incorporates them into an Act of Parliament. It puts Parliaments in direct touch with these companies and instructs them to prepare themselves for nationalisation.
Finally, in Clause 51, we have the very words which my right hon. Friend has tried to incorporate into this new Clause, and to which the Minister objects, where it says that it shall be the duty of every company specified in the Third Schedule to this Act to furnish information to Parliament. That is a duty. Why does the Minister say that Parliament has no direct relationship with these publicly-owned companies? It is here set out in his own Bill, and all that we are seeking to do is to repeat the same principle in the Amendment.

Mr. Jennings: I am very much alarmed by what the Minister has said. To turn round here, with millions of public funds to be put into the companies of a Corporation who are buying out the controlling interest in those companies, and to tell the House bluntly, as he has done this afternoon, that we have no direct touch with these publicly-owned concerns

is, in my opinion, not treating public funds with the care with which they should be treated. If we have not some direct connection between Parliament and these publicly-owned companies, I think that, as Members of this House of Commons, we ought to see that we have, and that we have the same right to see what is being done with regard to the instructions to be carried out under this Bill.
It is an alarming situation when the Minister can say what the Corporation can do, but cannot express a view as to what these publicly-owned companies do, and when there is no direct touch with them so far as Parliament is concerned. I think that is a very alarming statement for a responsible Minister to make on a question in which nationalisation figures so often.

Mr. J. Lewis: Would the hon. Gentleman say what direct relationship there is between the shareholders of Unilevers and the companies which are subsidiaries of Unilevers?

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that there is a vast difference between private enterprise shareholders and public funds which are fleeced from the public to put into these nationalised industries. The shareholders in any of these large concerns are at liberty to sell their shares and to get out if they are not satisfied. I am told that I have a share in some of these nationalised industries. My share is going very cheaply to any Member of the House, if he likes to buy it.
The position is not apparently appreciated by the hon. Gentleman. Here we are dealing with public funds, and we have to get that into our heads. Private enterprise can do what it likes, provided that it complies with the Companies Acts and the shareholders are prepared to put up funds for subsidiary companies, but if the shareholders are not satisfied, they can get out and sell the shares. Here the general public are tied for life in these nationalised industries. It is an alarming statement for the Minister to say that he can control the Corporation or give these instructions to the Corporation but he has no power to give them to the publicly-owned concerns. I think that he ought to see that he does give these instructions, otherwise the proposed new Clause does not mean half what it is suggested to mean.

Mr. Mitchison: I wonder if the Opposition have read their own Amendment. I notice that one of the things that each company would have to do if the Amendment were accepted would be to secure that products were available in such quantities and of such types and at such prices as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands of the consumers. I find it very difficult to see what the position is of the individual companies if each of them has to carry out this obligation, not according to their own views and not according to any abstract principle, but according to the views of the Corporation.
Moreover, when I look at the rest of the Amendment I see that if these obligations were accepted, each one of the companies would have to promote the efficient and economic supply of the products of what I might call the Second Schedule activities. In fact, when one looks at these subsidiary companies some of them are carrying on a general business and others are carrying on specialised business. What is the point, and what is the sense, in putting on an iron ore mining company, such as some of these are, the obligation with regard to supplying finished or semi-finished steel. It seems to me to make complete nonsense of the proposed Clause.
As regards the effect of it, surely it is clear to everyone that the Corporation controlling these subsidiaries has power to carry out this obligation and is, indeed, the only body that can carry it out, for it is a general obligation and not one appropriate to these particular companies. As regards the relations between this House and the subsidiaries, it is interesting to note that hon. Gentlemen opposite desire a degree of Parliamentary control and interference which surprises me. The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) has just asked, if I understood him rightly, that Parliament should have power to control and interfere with the ordinary day-to-day workings of these companies. If he did not say that, I really do not know what he meant.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is misstating our point of view. I went so far as to say that the relation with regard to day to day business, and so on, between this House and these companies remains still

entirely undefined. I think that is an extremely difficult matter. I do not think for one moment that this House ought to surrender a power to look into day-to-day matters. On the other hand, too great an exercise of that power would make the workings of these Corporations impossible. These, however, are arguments against nationalisation, but not against the general proposition.

Mr. Mitchison: When making those remarks the right hon. Gentleman ought to have turned round and addressed them to the hon. Member for Hallam, who was sitting just behind him, and to whose speech I was referring. I am well aware that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have very different views of these matters, that some of them want one thing and some another but what I was saying was directed to the remarks we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hallam. I repeat, with respect to him, that I am surprised to hear from his lips this wish for Parliamentary interference, as I understood it, in the day-to-day activities of these companies.

Mr. Jennings: The hon. and learned Member is misquoting me. I never, in any part of my speech, mentioned anything about day-to-day activities. I hope he will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Mitchison: I would not for worlds misquote the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that if what he put forward did not mean and imply what I have said, I am afraid that I, for one, entirely failed to appreciate his point, and I think that feeling may well be shared by other hon. Members.
Surely the sense of this business is that, under Clause 4 this House has, through the Minister, control over the workings of the Corporation. That must be the right way to do it. It is quite impossible for a body such as this House to supervise, by means of Parliamentary control, the operations of some 100 companies, some of them large and some of them small, carrying on every sort of activity connected with this technical and multifarious industry.

Mr. Peake: Before we proceed to a Division on this Amendment, I should like, as the mover of it, to say a few words in reply to one or two of the arguments advanced against it, particularly


those advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The hon. and learned Gentleman always comes to the rescue of the Government when they are trying to defend an indefensible position, and he usually succeeds in making the position even more indefensible than it was before. In this case he completely answered his own first argument by producing his second argument. His first argument, as I understood it, was that it would be very unwise to lay upon one of these 106 companies in the Third Schedule—which he, for some reason or other, imagined would produce nothing but roadstone, or something of that sort—

Mr. Scollan: Ironstone.

Mr. Peake: Well, ironstone, if the hon. Member prefers it.

Mr. Scollan: My hon. and learned Friend said ironstone.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that iron is made out of ironstone, not roadstone.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. Let us then take his example of ironstone. His argument apparently was that this Amendment would lay upon a company which produced only ironstone a duty for the efficient and economical supply of all the three or four activities listed in the first column of the Second Schedule; but he went on to point out that the quantities, types, sizes and prices have to be those as seem to the Corporation best calculated to further the public interest. Of course, if a company supply nothing but ironstone the Corporation would not be likely to deem it in the public interest that that company should supply finished steel in certain quantities, of certain sizes, and at certain prices. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman's second argument completely abolished his first argument.
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that this new Clause of the Minister's was put upon the Order Paper very late in the day, after there had been another new Clause in very similar terms on the Order Paper for something like a month. That new Clause which was on the Order Paper for so long, in providing that there should

be no undue preference or discrimination exercised by the Corporation, went on to say in a proviso that these provisions against undue preference should not be enforceable in any court of law. It was a most surprising new Clause to put down, because the whole object of provisions about undue preference is so that they shall be enforceable in a court of law.
4.15 p.m.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman: if somebody suffers from unfair discrimination, or if somebody is granted undue preference by one of these 106 companies in the Schedule, does he believe or think that under his new Clause as it is now drawn any effective legal action could be taken in the courts against the Corporation? I do not myself believe, where there is a complaint, as to either supply or price, and where the person who has supplied is one of the 106 companies listed in the Third Schedule, that any right of action could possibly exist against the Corporation under this new Clause, because it will not be the Corporation which has been responsible for either fixing the price or giving the supply.
I believe that this new Clause has been drawn in this way, amongst other things, so as to give a pretence of protection against undue preference or unfair discrimination, and to avoid any possibility of there being a right of recourse to the courts by any injured party against the Corporation. One of the objects of our Amendment is to lay a duty in this matter upon the companies named in the Third Schedule, so that consumers may achieve some real protection by being able to take proceedings in the courts against those companies if they suffer at the hands of those companies. As we are quite dissatisfied, not only with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering but also with those of his right hon. Friend the Minister, we propose to divide the House on this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Those of us who did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee must naturally, to a certain extent, be seekers after knowledge at this stage of the proceedings, and I wish to put to the Minister a matter which is puzzling me somewhat. Just


now the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said—and I hope I am quoting him correctly—that Parliament, through the Minister, will be able to exercise control over the Corporation. Now, when the new Clause was under discussion a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked the right hon. Gentleman—who I think overlooked the question in his reply—to what extent he envisages that control being exercised.
As is known, we are now working under a new and experimental procedure as regards the questioning of Ministers on the subject of nationalised industries, and we have to conform to the general statement made by the Leader of the House. It would help if the Minister could give some indication of the scope of Questions which he proposes to accept—because, after all, that is the procedure. We have had some difficult problems in other Acts now operative, such as those dealing with coal, electricity and transport. Let me give an example which I think is relevant. A few months ago some unfortunate passengers travelling on the British Railways suffered from a severe attack of food poisoning after taking lunch on board a restaurant car. I endeavoured to find out the details about this lamentable incident by tabling a Question, only to be informed that it was a matter of day-to-day administration. Since then, whenever I have been travelling I have felt myself in grievous peril on entering a restaurant car.
It would help a great deal in discussing this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication of the sort of Questions with which he expects to deal. It is no good the hon. and learned Member for Kettering comforting us with the thought that we have this Parliamentary protection—and there is no greater Parliamentary protection than Question Time—if we are to find that the large majority of Questions are to be refused on the grounds that they are matters of day-to-day administration. It is rather difficult if those of us who did not participate in the very lengthy, but not sufficiently lengthy, discussions upstairs, are not able to find out on Report stage the answer to so simple and important a matter as this. Before the steel industry companies come under

public control, let Members be told what Questions can be asked in this House.

Mr. C. Williams: I always listen with very great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I have heard him make several speeches during his sojourn in the House, and I always wonder which speech is the most confusing in thought to Members of the House. When he makes a speech I always look at Members on the Government Front Bench to see the expression of wonder on their faces that anyone could possibly so misread their Bills. The hon. and learned Member apparently got extremely mixed up about what was wanted in devolving the powers under this Bill. As I understand it, the Government devolve the powers entirely on the Corporation and the Corporation have the power, because they are the only shareholder, to deal with the 100 companies.
We do not wish to interfere unnecessarily with the affairs of the Corporation and with the working of these companies. The attitude the House should take in this respect is precisely the same attitude as is adopted in the case of local authorities. We give certain powers to local authorities and they all come to the central authority of Parliament. In other words, we have the powers of the purse, and, having granted them their authority, we help them in one way or another. Although we do not interfere with their ordinary administration, there are certain matters which must occasionally come before the House of Commons. That is the correct procedure to adopt in this case.
I hope that the Government will think again, because it does not seem from the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave that the new Clause will work properly without this Amendment. Attention has already been drawn to Clause 51, and it is only right that the Government should tell us what is the guiding principle of that Clause in connection with this new Clause, and particularly in connection with the Amendment. When we look at the proviso, it seems as if it might completely upset the Minister's intentions. Those who have spoken from the other side have succeeded only in confusing the position. I am sorry to speak of them in this way in the presence of the Patronage Secretary, who is looking at me very severely.
It is impossible for the Minister to ride off and say that we have no powers over these 101 companies, because he knows perfectly well that we have the full powers of finance over each one of them. The real difficulty is that the Corporation is the only shareholder, because otherwise there would be more freedom for the companies. This must be an exceedingly dangerous position, when we bear in mind that some of these companies have very limited powers and others vast powers. It would be a grave dereliction of duty if we did not make it perfectly clear that these powers should be limited, and that at the same time there should be limited powers of discretion for the House of Commons.

4.30 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: We come for the first time in this Clause to some very important words, which are becoming quite commonplace in our considerations nowadays and about which I should like to have some enlightenment from the Minister. The words are "the public interest." What is meant by those words? Not everybody will agree about what is, in fact, the public interest, and a great many people will wonder by what standard the public interest is to be measured. Almost everyone uses iron and steel or their products at some time, and no doubt all such users would feel very happy if all prices were reduced by half. Could that be regarded as being in the public interest, or is the public interest to be judged by the prosperity of the Corporation and their subsidiary companies? How will the public interest be decided?
This question becomes all the more important by virtue of the words which felt from the Minister, who stated that there was no direct relationship between Parliament and the publicly-owned companies, so that presumably we would be precluded from asking Questions about the conduct of these publicly-owned companies and whether or not their conduct was in the public interest. Consequently, some form of definition as to what is the public interest becomes all the more necessary since we are muzzled in our attempts to discuss the matter in Parliament. Who judges the public interest? According to the Clause, it is the Corporation. Has the Minister power to

intervene and to say that what the Corporation are doing is or is not in the public interest? I presume the right hon. Gentleman has that power, but suppose he himself is wrong; does the matter then go to the Cabinet? If the Cabinet are wrong there is no court of appeal, and I say there should be some court of appeal to decide whether the public interest is or is not being pursued as a result of a certain course of action. Otherwise, the public interest merely passes behind another iron curtain. The matter is decided unilaterally by the Minister, and the public have no chance to decide whether or not the public interest is being followed. The Amendment, although leaving the public interest undefined, does link up companies with the publicly-owned Corporation and make them subject to the same yardstick of measurement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I want to address the Minister on a fairly narrow point. In Committee, we always found the right hon. Gentleman's answers both courteous and comprehensive. In the Debate on this Clause I asked the right hon. Gentleman why, in his first draft, he left out a proviso that its provisions should not be enforceable in a court of law. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer me—for good reasons, I suspect—and although I did not pursue the matter further then, I think we should come to it again now, in the Debate on this Amendment. If there is meant to be any meaning at all in paragraph (b), with regard to showing undue preference and exercising undue discrimination against certain persons, it must be enforceable in a court of law. I take it that the purpose of deleting the original proviso was to make it enforceable in a court of law. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees thus far against whom is it to be enforced, because it will be quite impossible or proof against the particular company which was selling the product?
If it is simply left as a general duty of the Corporation the consumer will not be able to prove that the Corporation are exercising that duty. We do not know in what way the Corporation will deal with directors of boards it will therefore be impossible for any consumer to enforce these provisions, which are meant for his protection, against the Corporation. The only body against whom it will be possible to enforce the proviso will be the company


which has sold the product, and which has shown undue preference or discrimination. That is the whole reason for inserting in the new Clause a provision which includes the subsidiaries of the Corporation. There may be some point as to whether it should be confined to wholly-owned subsidiaries, but I should have thought that so far as they were concerned it would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to dispute logically the validity of what I have said.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The Corporation are definitely responsible under the new Clause. If anyone wanted to proceed he would be able to proceed against the Corporation, who would be responsible for any undue preference which they might give and which was considered to be contrary to the public interest.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman says "they might give."

Mr. Strauss: Which might be given by the individual company.

Mr. Harrison: Would that apply to partially-owned companies?

Mr. Strauss: It is not just 100 companies who will be responsible; approximately 300 companies will be responsible for carrying out the duties which are imposed upon them.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I am interested in this matter as a not inconsiderable user of steel. Suppose, if the companies come under the ownership and control of the Corporation, that I place a contract for a supply of sheet steel with, say, Dorman Longs or Baldwins. That contract will be directed to them. Suppose I find out, subsequently, that someone else has been given preferential terms or better deliveries. Against whom have I got a remedy? The Minister has just said it will not be against the company with whom I have contracted, but that it will be against the Corporation. It is impossible for me to argue a point of law like that, but it seems absurd that if I make a contract with Baldwins, and they subsequently default, I should ignore them and go to the Corporation. If business is to be carried on in the

ordinary way surely an Amendment of this kind, which puts the onus of responsibility on the public company concerned ought to be accepted.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would it be necessary when a contract is being made with, say, Baldwins for it to be stated on the contract that they are acting as agents for the Corporation? If that does not appear there can be no cause of action against the Corporation, because there is no contract to be broken unless the subsidiary company acts as the Corporation's agent and that is stated on the contract.

Mr. Lyttelton: Rather than that we should divide I would ask the Minister to look at this point again. No matter of principle is involved or, at least, no matter of great principle. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is after the same object as we are, but I do not think he will achieve it by what he has proposed so far. The argument that recourse is against the Corporation appears to me to rest on a legal supposition of the most extraordinary character. We would rather not divide the House if we can get a promise that the matter will be put right.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The remedy would lie against the Corporation, which could be proceeded against on this basis: that it was their duty not to show undue preference and in as much as they would be a governing factor in publicly-owned companies because they controlled, through their shareholdings in those companies, their activities. If the publicly-owned companies showed undue discrimination proceedings would lie against the Corporation, to prevent them from showing undue preference in causing the wholly-owned public company to show, or not stopping it from showing undue preference. Action would not lie against the company itself, but against the Corporation.

Mr. Lloyd: Suppose the Corporation exercises control, and has every intention of stopping the subsidiary company from taking certain action but the board of that company do enter into a discriminatory contract. Could it be said that the Corporation would then be liable in those circumstances?

The Solicitor-General: It would have to, be established that the Corporation had not used the powers which it possessed as the sole shareholder in the publicly owend company to prevent the publicly owned company from exercising undue preference against a particular person. I can quite conceive that it would be impossible to deal with that in a particular contract, but it would depend on the circumstances. If it could be shown that the Corporation did not exercise its powers over a publicly owned company in such a way as to prevent that company showing undue preference in its supply of a particular commodity, then it would render itself liable to proceedings.

Mr. Scollan: In Clause 10 it very definitely states:
The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and section twenty-one of the Limitation Act, 1939, shall not apply to any action, prosecution or proceeding against the Corporation, or for or in respect of any act, neglect or default done or committed by a servant or agent of the Corporation in his capacity as a servant or agent of theirs.
Would that not exempt it from being sued by someone, who felt he was not getting the proper service that it had contracted for?

The Solicitor-General: No, Sir, I do not think it does.

Mr. P. Roberts: The Solicitor-General has demolished the Government's case and made the case for the Opposition, because now what the Government intend this Clause to do is this—the Corporation will give general instructions that there should not be any undue preference. We will assume that it issues the instructions in accordance with the Clause, but in a subsidiary there may be a group of men who decide to go against those instructions. They do so and injury is felt by a consumer because of an undue preference. The consumer has no remedy against the Corporation, because the Corporation can prove that it has taken every possible precaution. Nor will he have any right against the directors themselves. It may be that the Corporation will say to the directors that they have been proved wrong and they will be sacked, but that does not help the consumer who has been hurt. This seems to be a most clumsy way to deal with the thing. I would ask

the Minister to reconsider the whole matter. The answer given by the Solicitor-General is no doubt a way by which it can work, but it is an unsatisfactory way. I am quite certain that after this Debate when the Corporation comes into existence it will be quite clear in its instructions to the wholly owned subsidiaries. What we are trying to get at is that someone in the wholly owned subsidiaries might act against those instructions, and if that is so, no action will lie.

Mr. Erroll: I do not wish to add unnecessarily to the length of the discussion, but could we be told what are the objections to the words we are discussing? Would they do any harm? Why not insert them if they avoid doubt or ambiguity?

Mr. J. Lewis: Would the Solicitor-General tell us if, in fact, a contract which is entered into with a subsidiary company may be regarded as a contract with the Corporation, or is the Corporation mentioned in the contract?

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to ask a question on a point of law. I always understood that under the present law it was a company which was sued and not the shareholders. The shareholders may be put into one person and be the Corporation, but it is still the company as I understand it. I am not a lawyer and we have not a lawyer of any distinction—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak, and in asking his question he is going rather wide.

Mr. Williams: I shall not go any wider. As I understand it, under the present law it is not the individual shareholders who are responsible, and even if all the shareholders are in one body called the Corporation surely the company is still responsible. What is going to be the position of a small man dealing with a company who has to go right through the whole of this procedure in dealing with the big Corporation?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 208.

Division No.106.]
AYES
[4.47 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nicholson, G.


Astor, Hon. M.
Haughton, S. G
Nield, B. (Chester)


Baldwin., A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Odey, G. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beechman, N. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Byers, Frank
Hutchison., Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesalf)


Challen, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cole, T. L.
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M


De la Bere, R.
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield Donner, P. W
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, H. G.


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Tayor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drayson G.B.
McCllum, Maj. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E, A. (P'idd'tn, S.)


Drewe, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thomas, Iver (Keighley)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McFrlane, C. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Duthie, W. S.
Mokie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Errol, F. J.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Matson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Ha. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannon Sir P. (Moseley)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Commander Agnew and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bramall, E. A.
Daines, P.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Albu, A. H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Atpass, J. H.
Burden, T. W.
Deer, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Burke, W. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, James
Diamond, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Carmichael, James
Dobbie, W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Ayles, W. H.
Chater, D.
Dugdale, J.(W. Bromwich)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Cluse, W. S.
Dye, S.


Balfour, A.
Cocks, F. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Barstow, P. G.
Collick, P.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Barton, C.
Collindridge, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Battley, J. R.
Collins, V. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Colman, Miss G. M
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Benson, G.
Cook, T. F.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Beswick, F.
Cooper, G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Bing, G. H. C
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Ewart, R.


Binns, J.
Cove, W. G.
Fairhurst, F.


Blackburn, A. R.
Crawley, A.
Farthing, W. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fernybough, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Cullen, Mrs.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dagger, G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)







Foot, M. M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Segal, Dr. S.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lyne, A. W.
Sharp, Granville


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McAdam, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Shurmer, P.


Gibbins, J.
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gibson, C. W.
McGovern, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Gilzean, A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Skinnard, F. W.


Goodrich, H. E.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Solley, L. J.


Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sorensen, R. W.


Grierson, E.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, G. (Cambenwell, N.)
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Steele, T.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gunter, R. J
Medland, H. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Guy, W. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Messer, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hale, Leslie
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mikardo, Ian
Swingler, S.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mitchison, G. R.
Symonds, A. L.


Hardman, D. R.
Monslow, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Harrison, J.
Morley, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Haworth, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.
Titterington, M. F.


Hicks, G.
Nally, W.
Tolley, L.


Hobson, C. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holman, P.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Hoy, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Viant, S. P.


Hubbard, T.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Walkden, E.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Walker, G. H.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parker, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.
Watson, W M.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Weitzman, D.


Janner, B.
Pearl, T. F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Perrins, W.
West, D. G.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Popplewell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


John, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Price, M. Philips
Wigg, George


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Pryde, D. J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Keenan, W.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kenyon, C.
Ranger, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Key, Rt. Hon. G. W.
Rankin, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


King, E. M.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Willis, E


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Reeves, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Kinley, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Rhodes, H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Lang, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lavers, S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caennarvonshire)
Woods, G. S.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Wyatt, W.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Yates, V. F.


Leonard, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leslie, J. R.
Royle, C.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Levy, B. W.
Sargood, R.



Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Scollan, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 9, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert
(b) to secure that in relation to the home market no undue preference is shown or unfair discrimination exercised by the Corporation or any subsidiary of the Corporation in favour of

or against any consumer of class of consumers in the supply or price of any products produced by the Corporation or any subsidiary of the Corporation.
This Amendment is parallel to the one with which we have just dealt. If hon. Members will look at the proposed Clause they will see that the avoidance of


undue discrimination or preference applies, as that Clause is drafted—I think I am right—only to Second Schedule products, if I may use that omnibus term. The object of the Amendment is to include all the products of the Corporation under the provisions which seek to prevent undue discrimination and undue preference. Acceptance of the Amendment would avoid some of the disadvantages which we think are inherent in the Minister's own draft.
The main object of the Amendment is to see that the undue preference and discrimination provisions embrace all the products which may be produced by the large number of companies and not only those products which are in the Second Schedule. It is our wish and hope that the Corporation and its subsidiaries will only engage in the manufacture of products which are specified in the first column of the Second Schedule, but as the Bill is now drafted, the activities covered by the Corporation and its 100-odd subsidiaries are so wide that it seems absolutely impossible to include all the products which are produced, let alone those in the Second Schedule.
The Corporation might show, for example, undue preference to the nationalised railways over the building of a bridge, and might prevent me from building a bridge which I must build as part of my undertaking, in order to get heavy equipment out of the works. The equipment gets heavier and heavier as the years go on and it is necessary to build a bridge, but bridge-building is not included in Second Schedule activities. I want protection to be put into the Bill so that this provision about undue preference will apply to all the products of the Minister's large family—although he is now leaving some of the children on other people's doorsteps. That is the main object of our revised paragraph (b).

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: If no discrimination is to be applied to Second Schedule products, surely it is logical that no discrimination should be possible in regard to the other products which may be manufactured and sold by publicly owned companies belonging to the Corporation. Our Amendment seeks to make that position quite clear. We regard it as a most important matter that prevention of discrimination should be carried all along

the line in the home market. We are not here concerned with the possibility of having to arrange price differentials in regard to the export market where it may be necessary in order to secure foreign business, but in the home market there should be no discrimination between one class of consumers and another, particularly in those classes of non-scheduled products in which the new Corporation will have a virtual monopoly, such as steel tubes. It would be highly undesirable if certain producers of steel tubings were to be given more favourable prices than other would-be purchasers in the home market. We want the principle of non-discrimination applied just as thoroughly and vigorously in regard to all products as in regard to Second Schedule products alone.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I really do not think it necessary to incorporate the proposed Amendment. If there is dissatisfaction that any of the principal products manufactured by the companies owned by the Corporation are being sold to one person at a price which shows a preference compared with the price to somebody else, there will be ample opportunity for such a matter to come up through the Consumers' Council and to be put before the Corporation and the Minister. Here we are trying to impose on the Corporation its broad duties and I think it is right that we should here confine ourselves to Second Schedule activities; we shall get into awful difficulties if we deal with the very considerable number of subsidiary activities or by-products which may be made and which, as has been stated on many occasions, range from steel tennis rackets to umbrella frames and all sorts of things. If we impose duties of non-preference on all these activities we shall be going further than is desirable or necessary.
I have discussed this Clause, and particularly paragraph (b), with the organisations which represent consumers' interests. I refer particularly to the F.B.I., the National Union of Manufacturers and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. They have considered this very carefully with their legal advisers and they are satisfied that paragraph (b) meets various suggestions and criticisms which they have put forward. They are wholly satisfied with it. That does not necessarily mean that the House need accept


their views; there is no reason why we should not alter this if we think it desirable to do so. It is important that the House should know that I have gone all out to meet the reasonable suggestions and criticisms of these important bodies, which are the only bodies I can talk to as representing the consumers' interests, and that they are satisfied with paragraph (b). I should be very reluctant to re-open the matter unless there was a very good reason and unless it was suggested that this was in any way unfair or damaging to the public interest. I suggest that it would be wise to leave paragraph (b) as it is and not to alter the Clause by substituting the Amendment.

Mr. Shepherd: The Minister has given us the reasons why he resists the Amendment, but I feel that the arguments in favour of pressing it are very strong indeed. The Minister told the House that the products concerned are considerable and multifarious. Therefore, we are not dealing with some fairly small and extraneous item but with something of considerable moment. The Minister says that if any difficulty arises out of products not within the Second Schedule, those concerned can refer it to the consumers' council. If it has to be referred to the consumers' council, the proper thing to do is to include such provision in the Bill. If I go to a consumers' council and say that I object to discrimination in regard to x, y and z articles by a certain company, the consumers' council can say to me, "Very probably. We are concerned with discrimination and with avoiding it, but the Act says that Second Schedule products only are affected." The consumers' council would therefore be able to reject that claim. If the Minister really believes that the consumer or user has the right to complain to a consumers' council about discrimination he should empower the consumers' council to deal with that specific complaint and not, as he does in the new Clause, exclude those articles from the purview of the consumers' council. The arguments in favour of the Amendment are very strong and they are fortified by the answer which the Minister has given.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: One is impressed by the fact that the Minister has been carrying on conversations with the F.B.I. and other interested bodies, but

our Amendment goes much further than the Minister does in his Clause. The Clause refers only to products for manufacturing purposes—naturally the F.B.I. is very concerned in that—but we want to go much further down the scale to protect the consumer of the finished product. If the Amendment is accepted, it will offer protection to the consumer of the actual finished product, and such products will, of course, come from the publicly-owned companies. We consider that the Amendment should be pressed. Referring the matter to the consumers' council will undoubtedly not be efficacious—we have seen how well these consumers' councils work in other nationalised industries—and I hope that we shall press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that the Minister may, perhaps by himself or by someone else, answer now a question which he was unwilling to answer on the new Clause; that is to say he has defended his new Clause and by inference resisted this proposed Amendment upon the ground that there will be ample Parliamentary control over these things through the Ministry. The question, therefore, which I put to him and which I apologise to the House for putting again but I got, no answer on the earlier occasion, is this: Is it his expectation that in this matter of preferences and discriminations any Question not out of Order for other reasons would be ruled out of Order on the ground that it is of this kind? I hope he will not answer this by using the argument of one of his supporters from a back bench who said I was asking the Minister to give a ruling which could not come from anywhere but from the Chair. I am not asking now for a ruling and I was very careful in my language then not to ask for a ruling. What I am asking is "What is the Minister's expectation in this matter?" because unless it seems to the Minister pretty clear that Questions about alleged preferences and discriminations would be in Order addressed directly to the Minister, then his earlier argument was, no doubt inadvertently, disingenuous and his general case for the Clause and against this Amendment is that much weakened. He owes it to the House to answer that question.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Perhaps I might answer that question directly. Any matter


which affects the consumer, whether it is price, preference or anything else, which is put before the Consumers' Council and the Consumers' Council puts before me, is a matter on which I can be questioned in Parliament—if it goes through the machinery of the Consumers' Council; otherwise, of course, it would be a matter for which I would not be directly responsible. The machinery of the Consumers' Council is put there largely for the purpose of allowing direct ministerial control over detailed matters on which any consumer may complain.

Mr. Piekthorn: I am sorry to keep the House waiting but I am not fully confident—none of us who has not been on the Committee on this Bill can be—that we may not be partly asking questions or propounding arguments not quite in point, but it appears to one who was not on the Committee that from what the Minister says the effect will be that these matters of preference and discrimination will not be subject to Parliamentary Question unless they have been referred by the consumers' council to the Minister. That seems to me to take more than half the weight out of his earlier argument and to make the defence of his Clause against the Amendment considerably more difficult.

Mr. P. Roberts: There is one point I would put to the Minister on this if he will not accept our Amendment. It is not a question of racquet handles but of coke. The production of coke is a big item. Hon. Members opposite who come from mining districts will know that the Coal Board also produces coke, and that a, great number of men are employed by the Coal Board in its production. Also a large number of coke ovens will be taken over under this Bill by the Steel Corporation. The question of undue preference arises here actually because, if there is to be a surplus of coke, as there may be in a few years' time, there will be two producers of it, the National Coal Board, on the one hand, and the Steel Corporation, on the other. I see a possibility of undue preference in the sale of coke vis-à-vis the Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board. I can see the Steel Corporation wanting to unload its coke, and doing so, at prices below which the National Coal Board is selling coke and, let us say, pushing their coke and putting out of employment a

large number of men under the National Coal Board.
Has the Minister considered that possibility? I think it is unwise to limit the argument of undue preference merely to the four items in the Second Schedule. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he would not increase it to include coke and other big manufacturies which are obviously to be undertaken by the Steel Corporation because the consumers themselves will not object to an undercutting in the price of coke as between one Corporation and another, and it might be very much against the national interest.

Mr. Lyttelton: I want to put two points to the Minister. First, am I right in supposing that the Clause as drafted applies only to Second Schedule products?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: indicated assent.

Mr. Lyttelton: If the Minister goes as far as that in accepting our point of view, surely he can go the whole way and say that undue discrimination and undue preference ought to apply to the whole range of products produced by those 100 odd companies?
My second point is that it is just in these things which are outside the Second Schedule where undue discrimination and undue preference is, from our point of view, of the most value. In many of the Second Schedule products the new Corporation and its subsidiaries will own and control virtually 100 per cent. of the activities. Therefore the damage which may be done will be done only on the consuming side whereas, when we come down to the other products which may be almost infinite, the State-owned Corporation is competing with the private sector of industry over a large field without the protection of this undue discrimination. It would be possible for the State—and it the Clause is not amended it is one of the things that will happen—to try to put inconvenient competitors out of business by discriminating unduly in the prices of its products against them until they die from the competition which, no doubt, will be subsidised by the taxpayer. I think it is even more important to continue the Clauses against undue discrimination into the general products than it is to confine them to the Second Schedule activities. I put that point strongly to


the Minister, and I hope he will look at it again.
I really believe that the Minister and we, on this side, are trying to get at the same object, and if he will look at it again, I think he will agree that what is applicable to the Second Schedule products ought to be applicable to all the products, and particularly to those where this form of State competition with private enterprise is likely to be most acute.

5.15 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to ask the Minister one question. In passing, may I hope that I shall have more luck in getting an answer to this one than I did to my question about the public interest which I put on the previous Amendment? The Minister mentioned the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and said that they were in complete agreement with the Clause as it stands. I know that those three bodies had conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, and that their general view was that no amendment could make the Bill satisfactory. The Minister promised to consider certain representations which they made to him, and he did so, but did he ask them, after he had produced the Clause in its present form, whether it was thoroughly satisfactory to them?

Mr. Strauss: When I said that these bodies agreed with the Clause I limited myself to paragraph (b). They had some minor disagreements about paragraph (a) but we are dealing now with paragraph (b). Of course these bodies do not like the Bill. There was no need for me to say that. I said that they expressed themselves as satisfied with paragraph (b) as now drafted.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The point I raise is in support of my hon. and gal-land Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) who, on the previous Amendment, asked the Minister to define what was the public interest, and received no answer. My dislike of this phrase is now of long-standing, and I have never been able to get any assurance from the Government that it means anything at all.
What can it possibly mean unless it is what is in the interest of the Government of the present day? There is no possible yardstick which could be taken so that one could say that the general will of the people as expressed in their day to day activities could be reflected in a phrase of this kind. Therefore it must mean what the Government of the day want to do, and nothing else.
To introduce a phrase of this kind into legislation at this late stage of a Parliament is a serious thing. It is much more serious than at the beginning of a Parliament such as this, when the public interest is the Socialist theory and purpose. At the end of such a Parliament it ceases to mean that at all, because there is a prospect of a change, and it might become the Conservative theory and purpose. How conflicting that is, and how dislocating to industry. How can industry interpret a phrase of this kind when it is introduced at this stage?
I have not had satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman either on the Committee stage upstairs or at any other time or, indeed, from the Lord President himself, who was the inventor of this vague and unsatisfactory phrase. So far as legislation is concerned, it can mean anything at all, and the Government would be well advised to take it out. Otherwise they might find that it interpreted in a very different way from what they now intend.

Mr. Maclay: Listening to this Debate the point which makes one realise most how necessary is this Amendment is the Minister's own answer explaining why he does not want it. He pointed out that one cannot visualise just what is to happen with all these subsidiary companies. I think that is not an unfair way of putting his reply. He said that if we extended this Clause to all the multifarious activities of ancillary companies we could not tell what the consequence would be. I could not agree more. We cannot. The trouble is that this type of legislation is new, and we had hoped that the Government had some slight idea of what its effect would be. If the Minister cannot foresee what will happen where there are wholly Government owned subsidiaries with wide articles of association and powers to do all sorts of things, the


least we can do is to have some protection on this discrimination point.
One can think of some very horrifying things that could happen. Naturally, I am afraid—and I apologise for doing it—to turn to an industry with which I am connected—shipping. There are, in the subsidiary articles of association and actually in production, I think, a great many of these companies which produce component parts of ships, such as davits, lifeboats and many other things. This is a dangerous thing to say, perhaps, from our point of view on this side of the Huose, but we have known in the past rather bad practices under free enterprise, of companies with certain links giving special priorities to an individual shipbuilding firm in getting the first delivery of the available lifeboats, or whatever else it may have been,

when there has been a period of short age, as we had even before the war.

Because something slightly doubtful has happened in the past, that is no justification for doing something still worse in this Measure; because we are setting up an infinitely worse condition with this big monopolistic concern and the Government-owned companies. Surely, we ought to try to cure an evil of the past rather than perpetuate it. The Admendment would go a long way to-wards curing that evil, which is a very dangerous one in the existing form of the Clause.

Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 146.

Division No.107.]
AYES
[5.24 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Albu, A. H.
Cooper, G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Gunter, R. J.


Allen Scholefield (Crewe)
Crawley, A.
Guy, W. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Cullen, Mrs.
Hale, Leslie


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Daggar, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Attewell, H. C.
Daines, P.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hardman, D. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hardy, E. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Harrison, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs, B.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Haworth, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Deer, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)


Balfour, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Diamond, J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Barstow, P. G.
Dobbie, W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Barton., C.
Dodds, N. N.
Hicks, G.


Battley, J. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
 Hobson, C. R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Holman, P.


Benson, G.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Beswick, F
Dye, S.
Hoy, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hubbard. T


Bing, G. H. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Binns, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Blackburn, A. R
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hynd H. (Hackney, C.)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Braman, E. A.
Ewart, R
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Bramall, E. A.
Fairhurst, F.
Janner, B.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Farthing, W. J.
Jay, D. P. T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Field, Capt. W. J
Jenkins., R. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Follick, M
John, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Burden, T. W.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Burke, W. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Callaghan, James
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Keenan, W.


Carmichael, James
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kenyon, G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gibbins, J.
King, E M.


Chater, D.
Gibson, G, W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gilzean, A.
Kinley, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kirby, B. V.


Cobb, F. A.
Goodrich, H. E.
Kirkwood., Rt. Hon. D.


Cocks, F. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lang, G.


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.(Wakefield)
Lavers, S.


Collick, P.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Collindridge, F
Grey, C. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Collins, V. J.
Grierson, E.
Leonard, W


Colman, Miss G. M.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.




Levy, B. W.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Perrins, W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Logan, D. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lyne, A. W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thurtle, Ernest


McAdam, W.
Price, M. Philips
Timmons, J.


McEntee, V. La T
Proctor, W. T.
Titterington, M. F.


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J.
Tolley, L.


McGovern, J.
Pursey, Comdr. H
Turner-Samuels, M.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Randall, H. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Ranger, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


MaLeavy, F.
Rankin, J.
Viant, S. P.


MaoPherson, Malcoim (stirling)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Walker, G. H.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reeves, J.
Wallace,G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Warbey, W. N.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Watkins, T. E.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Watson, W. M.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, D.


Medland, H. M.
Royle, C.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mellish, R. J.
Sargood, R.
West, D. G.


Messer, F.
Scollan, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Middleton, Mrs. L
Scott-Elliot, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mikardo, Ian
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sharp, Granville
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morley, R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morrison, P. (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington Lodge, T. C
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morrison, Rt Hn. (Lewisham, E.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Murray, J. D.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willis, E


Nally, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Naylor, T. E.
Solley, L. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon St Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Sparks, J. A.
Woods, G. S.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Steele, T.
Wyatt, W.


Oldfield., W. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross, Dr. B.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pargiter, G. A
Stubbs, A. E.



Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S.
Mr. Pearson and


Paton, Mrs. F.(Rushcliffe)
Sylvester, G. O.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Symonds, A. L.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Donner, P. W.
Howard, Hon. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Drewe, C.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr., N. J


Astor, Hon. M.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hurd, A.


Baldwin, A. E
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Barlow, Sir J.
Eccles, D. M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Beechman, N. A.
Errol, F. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Birch, Nigel
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Kendall, W. D.


Bower, N.
Fox, Sir G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Langford-Holt, J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Butcher, H. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Granville, E. (Eye)
Linstead, H. N.


Byers, Frank
Gridley, Sir A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Carson, E
Grimston, R. V.
Low, A. R. W.


Challen, C.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Haughton, S. G.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Cole, T. L.
Head, Brig. A, H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Cooper-Key, E M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir C.
McFarlane, C. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hollis, M. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


De la Bere, R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hope, Lord J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.







Marlowe, A. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Marples, A. E.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'rn, S.)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Mellor, Sir J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Thorneycroft, G. E P (Monmouth)


Molson, A. H. E.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecolesall)
Touche, G. C.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. L.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S ([...]rencester)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Ward, Hon G R.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Scott, Lord W.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)
Shepherd, S. (Newark)
White, J. B (Canterbury)


Nicholson, G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Nield, B. (Chester)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
York, C.


Odey, G. W.
Smithers, Sir W
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Snadden, W. M



Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pickthorn, K.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Major Conant and


Ponsonby, Col. C E
Studholme, H. G.
Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPOINTMENT OF CONSUMERS' COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES.)

(1) A Council, to be known as the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council and hereafter in this section referred to as "the, Council," shall, not later than six months after the general date of transfer, be established for the purposes mentioned in this section.

(2) The Council shall consist of—

 (a) an independent chairman appointed by the Minister;
(b) not less than fifteen nor more than thirty other persons appointed by the Minister, after consultation with such bodies (which may include organisations representing workers) as he thinks fit, to represent the interests of persons (hereafter in this section referred to as "the consumers") who are consumers of the products of any of the principal activities of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies; and
(c) two members of the Corporation nominated by the Corporation.

(3) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being the chairman of the Council so long as he is a member of the Commons House of Parliament, but a member of the Council other than the chairman and a member of any committee appointed by the Council under this section shall not by reason of his appointment as such a member be disqualified for being elected to, or for sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament.

(4) The Council shall be charged with the duties—

(a) of considering any matter affecting the interests of the consumers (including prices), being a matter which is the subject of a representation made to them by any of the consumers or which appears to the Council to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given apart from any such representation, and, where action appears to them to be requisite as to any such matter, of notifying their conclusions to the Corporation;
(b) of considering and reporting to the Minister or the Corporation on any matter referred to the Council by the Minister or the Corporation; and

(c) of making representations to the Minister on such matters affecting the interests of the consumers as the Council think necessary.

(5) The Council shall send to the Minister copies of any conclusion notified or report made to the Corporation, and shall send to the Corporation copies of any report or representation made to the Minister.

(6) The Minister may give directions to the Corporation on any matter arising out of any conclusion, report or representation made to him or to the Corporation by the Council, and shall inform the Council of any directions so given, and the Corporation shall give effect to any such directions.

(7) The chairman of the Council shall, on a request made by not less than six members other than members nominated by the Corporation, call a meeting at which the members nominated by the Corporation shall not be entitled to be present, but no report or representation in respect of the matters discussed at any such meeting shall be made to the Minister, unless the decision to' do so has been approved at a meeting of the Council at which the members nominated by the Corporation were entitled to be present.

(8) The Council may, with the approval of the Minister, appoint committees, consisting wholly or partly of persons who are not members of the Council, to consider and report to the Council upon matters affecting the interests of particular classes of the consumers, whether defined by reference to locality, the products concerned or otherwise, and the Council shall, before appointing the members of any such committee, consult with such organisations representing the consumers concerned and their workers as the Minister may determine.

(9) The Council may appoint committees, consisting wholly of members of the Council, to consider and report to the Council on any matter referred to them by the Council.

(10) The Council shall, with the approval of the Minister, make rules with respect to the quorum, proceedings, meetings and determinations of the Council and any committee appointed by the Council, and copies of the minutes of the proceedings of the Council, except proceedings at meetings called under subsection (7) of this section, and of the proceedings of every such committee shall be sent to the Corporation.

(11) The Council may, subject to the approval of the Minister as to numbers, appoint such officers as appear to the Council to be requisite for the proper exercise and performance of their functions (including the functions of any committee appointed by the Council).

(12) The Corporation shall pay to the members of the Council or of any such committee such allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time and such travelling allowances and allowances in respect of their out-of-pocket expenses, and to the officers of the Council such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) and such allowances, as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury determine, and may pay to the chairman of the Council such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) as the Minister may with such approval determine, and shall pay such expenses incurred by the Council or any such committee as the Minister may with such approval determine.

(13) Every member of the Council and of every committee appointed by the Council shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(14) The Council shall he furnished by the Corporation with such office accommodation as appears to the Corporation to be requisite for the proper exercise and performance of their functions (including the functions of any such committee as aforesaid) or as may be directed by the Minister.

(15) The Council shall, as respects each financial year of the Corporation, make to the Minister a report on the exercise and performance by the Council and the committees appointed by them of their functions during that year, and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.

(16) The Minister may, after consultation with the Council and the Corporation, by regulations make such Modifications of the preceding provisions of this section as may appear to him to be desirable for the purpose of securing more effective machinery for the safeguarding of the interests of the consumers.—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think everyone in the House will agree that the consumers' councils or committees are exceedingly important and form an essential part of any nationalisation Measure. I think it worth repeating that, for the first time, as a result of the nationalisation Measures which are being introduced by the Government, a huge range of consumers, who before used to complain in vain that they were given shabby treatment by some producer of raw materials or—

Mr. Lyttelton: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to steel?

Mr. Strauss: I was just about to quote the speech made by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) who was complaining just now that shipbuilders had suffered severely in the past from unfair discrimination arising from the manufacture of steel products. I do not know whether that is correct, or not, but he was speaking for the shipping industry.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) is not in his place, but I think I am right in saying that he was criticising the Ministry of Supply, under whose regulations the supply of steel has been conducted since 1939.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs is not here, but it is clearly within the recollection of the House that he was complaining of unfair discrimination by private enterprise and he was saying that he did not want those unfortunate occurrences to continue under public enterprise. I was going on to say that, as a result of the machinery set up under these Measures, such unfair discrimination can in future be brought before Parliament and there is Parliamentary and statutory power to see that such discrimination does not continue. Consumers of steel and many products, if they really appreciated what their interests are, would be extremely grateful to the Government for bringing in Measures which, besides giving them other advantages, will protect them from troubles from which they suffered in the past.
The original consumers' council Clause in the Bill which I put before the House was a very sketchy Clause, and it was deliberately so. I said in my Second Reading speech that I was unwilling to put a detailed Clause before the House affecting the protection of consumers' interests until I had had an opportunity of discovering the views of the principal consumers in the country and getting the general reaction of industry and of the Opposition and finding out from those who are most closely affected what sort of consumers' council they would prefer to have. That Clause was deliberately sketchy and, since the day of introduction, I have been able to hear the views of a large body of people, including the


major representatives of the consuming industries; the views of the Opposition have been expressed and the views of trade unions and, of course, of my colleagues on this side of the House. I think we have now been able, as a result of incorporating practically all those opinions—which have not been in conflict, and which in fact have run rather along the lines of the proposals the Government had in mind—to devise a Clause which will produce a useful and effective Consumers' Council able to discuss and remedy any grievance which consumers may feel to be suffering and of which they wish to rid themselves.
I wish to indicate the main features of this new Clause and to compare them in particular with the Clause which was in the original draft. First, we are far more definite here about the constitution and duties of the Consumers' Council. The criticism was made that the original Clause was rather nebulous and that we should have made it more precise. For the reasons I have given, we did not do that, but the proposed new Clause is certainly more precise and, I think, more satisfactory for that reason.
We have also incorporated in this Clause a date by which the Consumers' Council has to be established. I was rather reluctant to do that when we discussed the matter in Committee, not because I was unwilling to see a Consumers' Council established by an early date, but because I thought there might be some difficulty in getting the nominations from a large range of bodies. But I risked that and if the bodies are unable to put forward nominations in time, we shall have to go forward with the nominations we receive. We now say that the date will be within six months of the date of transfer.
I have incorporated a proposal, advocated by the Opposition, that there should be an independent chairman of the Consumers' Council. I abandoned the idea, with which I toyed and put forward upstairs really for the sake of argument, that there should be two consumers' councils operating on parallel lines. Having had views put to me by various bodies, I think it would be far better to have one major Consumers' Council, possibly with a number of sub-committees. This Consumers' Council will deal with a wider range of problems than I originally con-

ceived and representatives of consumers who are not merely consumers of secondary products will be eligible for sitting on the council.
Further, the point was put to me that it would be desirable that this Consumers' Council should be able to meet without the representatives of the Corporation when it desired to do so. I maintain the view that if the Council is to do its duty properly it must function as liaison machinery, not with the object of inventing grievances but of smoothing over difficulties that may arise. But I can well conceive, and I accepted the argument that it might be desirable, that consumers might wish to meet among themselves in order to decide the degree of priority of the points which they wish to be considered, taken up and may be rectified. So I have made provision that where necessary, when six members of the Consumers' Council so request, the Council shall meet without any representatives from the Corporation, but that such a meeting without the representatives of the Corporation present will be unable to prepare a report for submission to the Minister. Any report submitted to the Minister must come from the full body. I think that is right and proper.
These are the main changes. I have reason to hope, and I am confident, that they have largely met the views and criticisms put forward by the consuming industries. I think that we have largely met the views put forward by the Opposition. I do not think that there is very much between the various parties in the House or between the Government and the industrial interests in this matter. We want good effective machinery so that any trouble which may arise, any difficulties which cannot perhaps be settled beforehand, will now, through this machinery, be easily, quickly and smoothly settled. I think we have achieved that by the machinery proposed in this Clause.
I have maintained throughout the discussions on the various points in this Bill that it is most important that we should not introduce too much rigidity into the structure which we are building here, but I repeated that argument so often in Committee that it became almost a joke. I am certain that I was right, and I repeat it here, as I shall on various other occasions during the Report stage as often as is necessary, that we need to


be perfectly certain that what we are providing here is machinery which is flexible, which can be altered according to circumstances wherever it may appear to be necessary to bring about improvements, without having recourse to a Parliamentary Bill. Therefore, provision is here made for alteration of the constitution of this body or its powers by regulation should that at any time prove necessary. In view of these facts, I commend this new Clause to the House, and hope that it will receive approval in all quarters.

Mr. Lyttelton: I must say a few words upon this Clause. The fact that I am addressing the House at all is really the Minister's fault because he fell short of his usual candour in telling us—it is quite a legitimate piece of dialectic—that the Government introduced a very sketchy Clause when they were not quite aware of all the implications, and that they did it on purpose, and that this Clause is the result of second thoughts. I would equally like to put forward the point of view that the Government incorporated in the original Bill a ridiculous Clause which was manifestly unworkable and which was shot to pieces by the arguments of the Opposition in Standing Committee, and that they have now incorporated in this new Clause, most of our suggestions. I ask the House to believe that this is as plausible an explanation of the Clause at present before us as the explanation which the Minister gave.
I think that it is the first time in my now rather extensive Parliamentary experience that a Minister has said that he purposely introduced imprecise words in a Bill.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has heard me say that. In the Second Reading Debate on this Bill I deliberately said that we had introduced a Clause here which was vague with the object of being able to put it into proper shape following the introduction of I he Bill, after consultation with the appropriate authorities.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: If the Minister has said it more than once that makes it all the worse; I only hope that he will not do it again. Really, the House of Commons cannot be treated in this way as a

kind of means of putting up a Ministerial ballon d'essai to see whether it will float or not. The Minister said, "I always believe in flexibility; this is what I have always said; I think I said it at every meeting of the Standing Committee." What this means is that whenever the Opposition endeavoured to introduce terms of precision the Minister says that he is in favour of flexibility. Wherever the Minister is precise he stands upon the actual words, and on those occasions he is found to be extremely rigid.
The attitude of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to this Clause is that it is about the best that can be done in the circumstances, and we should not dream of dividing the House against it. When the Minister, however, tries to say that we agree that this is an effective way of protecting the consumer, I must say, and put it on record, that he is going much too far. Given the fact that the Government are to be in a key export and competitive industry like iron and steel, the verbose stuff contained in this Clause is the best we can do to protect the consumer. I give the Minister that, but if he thinks that the protection will be effective I must tell him that we profoundly disagree with him. Of course it will not.
Once the Government are in business the consumer can whistle for protection to all the consumers' councils in the world. I see that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. E. Porter), whose interventions are always so agreeable to us on this side of the House, nodding his head. There is no means by which the consumer of postal services can get the price lowered to an economic one if the Government do not want it to be so reduced. If the Government desire to use the Post Office as a means of raising revenue the consumer cannot prevent it. If the right hon. Gentleman gets into a mess with his nationalised Corporation, as he surely will, and starts to put up the prices far above world prices, in order to prevent Parliamentary probing, all these ideas of consultative bodies of
not less than fifteen nor more than thirty…
will be quite incapable of protecting the consumer against the Government nationalised industry. There is no means by which the private citizen can ever protect himself against a Government except by going to the ballot box.

Mr. Edward Porter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member will not say "Hear, hear" in another year's time.
I would say in passing that we now rather regret having introduced the subject of an independent chairman because it is a piece of machinery which can be and is being greatly abused in other places. However that may be, I am only speaking to say that we shall not divide the House against this Clause, and secondly, to place it on record that we think that this elaborate machinery will, in the circumstances, prove to be entirely ineffective, but it is the best that we can do.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: In moving the Second Reading of this new Clause the Minister said that he has had a further think about this very important matter. From the length of the Clause which he has introduced it looks as though he has had a pretty big think. I wish to ask him whether he has thought this matter out to its absolutely logical conclusion. I believe that he has not yet achieved finality in this matter. He said that he has allowed the provisions to be somewhat flexible; I am not sure whether he has allowed himself sufficient scope for the flexibility that is necessary.
This is the particular point involved. Primarily, it is a council of consumers, and yet on his own admission he has had to introduce two members of the Corporation on to a Consumers' Council. Having done that he has admitted the principle I wish to establish and persuade the Government to accept. It is that this idea of a council, as distinct from just a committee—the rather nebulous suggestion, as at first proposed in the Bill, that the consumers might have a committee in which to put their case—this idea of a council can only be met if we have a fully representative council of all the main and chief interests concerned with the success of the industry. That can only be achieved if the council is fully representative not only of the consumer interests, but of producer interests as well.
It has been the Labour Party's policy all along, and we have published this point time after time, that we are intend-

ing to work towards the full conception of industrial democracy. If that is the case, how can we conceive industrial democracy without a representative council for the organisation which is being democratised? It is quite impossible to consider that Parliament itself is the only body in which the fuller and more representative ideas can be put forward, because Parliamentary time, as we all know only too well, is taken up far too much by all sorts of other important matters to give adequate and continuous attention to the day-to-day, and weekly, and monthly, problems of the nationalised industries. I wish to ask the Government, therefore, whether we are really intending to work towards a real sense of industrial democracy or whether we are perhaps accepting a system which will be one of rather autocratic and remote control?
It is all too easy, as we know in the examples of monopolies that we have seen under private enterprise, for a monopoly to get remote from the real requirements of the producers. It can also ignore the day-to-day interests of the workers. Since there is no other place where either the workers or consumers can go it becomes the inevitable tendency of a monopoly to move away from the real interests of both the producers and consumers—those chiefly concerned with the success of the industry. I suggest that if we really want to implement our Labour Party policy, which is that we are endeavouring to work towards industrial democracy, one of the first things we must do is to set up a consumer-producer council instead of the conception of the Minister, which is for a one-sided Consumers' Council only.
The Minister may say he has allowed democratic control to take place. He may say he has already consulted various sections of the industry before bringing in his Bill. That may or may not be so; in any case we do not know what were the consultations, nor how long they will continue if this Bill becomes law. He may say he has consulted with the trade unions, the F.B.I. and Steel House, and has considered consumer interests in introducing this Clause. He may say that, in any case, the public interest will be watched by this House, but I have already endeavoured to suggest that that will not be possible.
I want to suggest that the workers themselves, as well as the consumers, want to feel that they have some top-level approach to the way in which the industry is run, and to the way in which the policy for the industry is worked out. I do not believe that that is possible unless we agree with the conception which I have tried to introduce to the Minister in the terms of the Amendments which I introduced in Committee. I believe that the only direction in which we can look for success in these nationalised undertakings is if we can build up a real sense of team spirit. So far in the nationalised industries there is still a feeling in the minds of the workers that at the top are those in control over whom they have no democratic influence, and with whom they have only very remote contact, who are still doing things with which the workers do not agree. There is a remote "they" instead of "we" who are running the industry. I suggest that the Minister think again about the actual terms in which this Clause is drafted.
If he considers that my point of view is personal, I would direct his attention to the comments of the Lord President of the Council which appeared in "The Times" of 22nd November of last year. For example, he is reported as saying that the goal of the Labour movement was the attainment of economic democracy. He went on to say:
The basic political problem of attaining economic democracy was to devise measures and machinery to take over in the public interest vital economic functions which had hitherto been organised by private persons in private interests.
Finally, he makes the point that the Government were not wedded to any particular management pattern for the socialised industries but he had primarily in mind, in working towards industrial democracy, the way in which the nationalised industries are, in fact, to be organised.
A further point, indicating that this is in fact the Labour Party's policy, was made in "Tribune" of 4th March of this year. I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place to listen to this, because he cannot be altogether oblivious to the suggestions made in this particular paper in view of his earlier association with it. The point here is this. It is quoted under the heading of "Industrial democracy,"

and what is conceived by that term, and it refers to the writings of Harold Clay. The wording is:
Nationalisation means even greater centralisation in some directions but"—
and this is the important point—
I believe that in nationalisation lies the greatest opportunity for the full practice of industrial democracy, with machinery which will allow for the fullest participation of the individual…
When I have spoken to those who work in some of the nationalised industries, I have found, in talking to the individual workers, that they do not feel that sense of individual responsibility in the running of the organisation. If some of my own colleagues doubt this point I would refer them to comments in the newspapers by Joe Hall, the Yorkshire miners' leader, who has been very critical of the bureaucratic set-up which has developed in the coal industry so far—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member will notice that the Clause relates to the appointment of a Consumers' Council. It has nothing to do with the people employed in the industry. It is a matter of a Consumers' Council for the particular industry concerned.

Mr. Cooper: I appreciate the point you have made, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was referring specifically to the proposal of the Minister. He makes provision for a Consumers' Council, but in fact he introduces into that council representatives of the producers in the form of two members of the Corporation. I maintain that because he has done that, he has had to agree in principle with the point I am making. He has not expressed the point clearly in his new Clause, but he has in fact done it, and in those circumstances I think he would have been more thorough if he had in fact, stated that it was his intention to make it a representative producer-consumer council. It is along those lines that I am arguing, as I see it, directly in line with the Minister's Clause.
The Minister is saying that it is a representative council. How can we have a representative council if the representatives are appointed by the Minister? It may well be that the Minister may want to "vet" some of the nominations before appointment, but I am not at all certain that that is a good


thing. In order to make this a really representative council—which is presumably the intention of the Minister—he must allow the consumer interests to elect their own representatives. Otherwise, it is equivalent to hon. Members of this House being appointed by the Prime Minister, which I do not think the people in this country would stand for one moment. Under those circumstances I think that the consumers should insist that their representatives on this council are elected.
There has been quite an amount of thought in various quarters—as to whether or not this council should sit in public or deliberate behind closed doors. I believe that to be an extremely important point. As a matter of fact, a Bill was introduced in Private Members' time, the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press) Bill to ensure certain public bodies giving access to the Press. Unfortunately, it did not receive a Second Reading; there was not time; but it is interesting to notice that this Bill was introduced not by hon. Members on one side of the House but by representatives from both sides of the House. That indicates, I consider, that this idea of these public bodies having the sanction of publicity applying to them, giving them teeth to their deliberations, so that they can, if they wish, meet in public, so that the public does know what is going on, is a matter of supreme importance.
6.0 p.m.
I ask the Minister whether, if he can do it in no other way, he will consider, between now and a later stage of the Bill, introducing a further paragraph which would enable this Consumers' Council to sit in public. I feel that, without that, the suggestion put forward by the Opposition that it can well become a sham organisation, just a facade of real democracy, will be realised; whereas I want, if I can, to make it—and I hope that the Minister will give some thought to what I have said—a really democratic council for the industry which will result in the industry becoming largely self-governing. We cannot have self-government unless we have elected representatives and we cannot have real democracy in the industry unless we have a council sitting in public in which those representatives express themselves publicly and which can state its ideas clearly so that

they will have some real influence on the executive board of the Corporation. That is the real essence of democracy as it has worked out over the years in this country. I suggest that it is the pattern which we might reasonably follow in the setting up of an organisation for the democratic control of this nationalised undertaking.

Mr. Birch: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) quoted a number of the sacred texts of Socialism, including the long text from "Tribune" to which he very rightly said that the Government should pay attention, because I see that most of their election propaganda is now contained in that paper and, no doubt, the fake photographs will follow. I thought that the hon. Gentleman rather ignored what the Consumers' Council is for. The Consumers' Council is for the protection of consumers of steel. It is worth while remembering that the interests of producers and consumers are by no means necessarily the same. Clearly it would always be to the interest of those engaged in the steel industry, whether managers or workers, to get the best they possibly can out of the industry for themselves; but that would not necessarily by any means be in the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Cooper: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can elaborate that point a little further. I believe that there is a real community of interest between producers and consumers. They both want the industry to be efficient. If they do not get a real standard of efficiency in the industry, how can the workers expect an increase in pay and how can the consumers expect to get supplies of the quality and quantity they require?

Mr. Birch: Of course, there is a long-run community of interest with everybody. On the other hand, if one industry can put itself a nose ahead, obviously it will be in a position to do better than it ought out of the general community. Presumably, that is one of the reasons why consumers' councils are set up. The hon. Gentleman was very anxious to get everybody on these councils—to have them voted on to the councils. That seems to me like having a General Election. I fully agree that if we get a General Election we will dispose of the whole of


this Bill and we will have no council at all. That will solve that problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said that in this House and in the Committees of this House we have a duty to get Bills as well worded as they can be. Therefore, he commended this new Clause as an improvement on the previous one. Clearly that is right. We have a duty in this House, all of us on both sides, to try to get Bills put into words which mean something. It certainly was something new to me to hear the Minister say that he deliberately drafted his Bill badly in order to get it amended. That is not the way in which Bills should be presented to this House.
I ask hon. Members to reflect about these Consumers' Councils. There is a feeling of absolute unreality about them. I thought that the Minister was extraordinarily complacent as he greased his way through his speech. He used phrases like, "This is exceedingly important to consumers," "This is an essential part of the Bill as far as they are concerned," "They will not complain in the future in vain," and "this provision will be useful and effective," and so on. It put me very much in mind of the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food who said that the gestation period of a cow was 11 months and that the Ministry's experts said so. It is that sort of bland and wholly meaningless statement which is made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who make them without really thinking what they are saying.
Let us reflect. What happens under nationalisation? I have quoted an instance already this evening. We are pricing ourselves out of the world coal market. Bunker coal in New York is 61s. 3d. a ton and in London it is 98s. a ton. What have the shipowners and other people done about this? I have no doubt what they have done. They have complained to the Consumers' Council set up under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. What has happened? Was is useful and effective? Did they complain in vain? Did they find it an exceedingly important and essential part of the Bill? Of course not. What happened was precisely and exactly nothing of any sort whatever.
What will happen when prices go up if this Bill unfortunately is ever put into effect? What would happen if we started pricing ourselves out of the international market in steel, as we are now doing in coal? A complaint to the council would be made. But is the right lion. Gentleman really so foolish as to believe that anything whatever would happen about it? I cannot believe that the Minister is as foolish as his words. He knows quite well that nothing whatever would happen about it. He also knows quite well that the effect of this Bill will be to increase the price of the products of the steel industry and to lower the standards of efficiency. Therefore, I rejoice that even if this Bill is passed through this Parliament it will still be an issue at the next Election and it will be stopped.

Mr. Haworth: I have a good deal of sympathy with the desire of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) to get the full co-operation of the workers in the industry. If he or anybody else thinks that the workers in the industry would consider that the suggestion made by him would be any step towards industrial democracy, then I assure them they are much mistaken. The workers in any of the nationalised industries would not be content for one moment with representation upon a Consumers' Council. The directions in which these very necessary changes must be made are on a different level altogether. I am pleased to find that definite steps are being taken in the nationalised industries to secure the co-operation of the workers, through the trade unions and the workshops—the latter is the place which really matters—and to secure the good will of the people concerned in the industry.

Mr. Cooper: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I apologise. The point I tried to make was that there is the need for the producers to be able to state their case collectively on a council—not on a Consumers' Council but on a council of a more comprehensive conception consisting of both producers and consumers.

Mr. Haworth: That would be entirely the wrong body on which to have the workers in the industry represented. The need for co-operation between management and staff is supreme. At the start of some of the nationalised industries,


there was a great feeling of frustration and disappointment among the workers that they were not being consulted more than they had been.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this question is really concerned with Consumers' Councils. It may be desirable to have workers in industries on Consumers' Councils, but I cannot see that a worker in an industry would be on the Consumers' Council for his own industrial product.

Mr. Attewell: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would you be good enough to give consideration to line 51 where there are the words:
…representing the consumers concerned and their workers as the Minister may determine.
If the workers are to be taken into consultation, might it not be best that the workers should also be on the main body?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the workers in the steel industry. So far as I understand line 51—and I have not read it very carefully—it refers to workers in say the shipbuilding industry, which is a consumer of steel.

Mr. Beswick: Might I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to subsection (2, c), which refers to two members of the Corporation being nominated by the Corporation? Would not they be interested in the production of steel?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But members of the Corporation are not workers; they are something else.

Mr. Haworth: Far be it from me to argue with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should have thought that if an Amendment was before the House to delete the word "Consumers'"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I almost interrupted the hon. Gentleman earlier, because that Amendment has not been moved and is not in fact selected. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) referred to it in his Second Reading speech on this new Clause, but there is no Amendment before the House.

Mr. Haworth: Might I then conclude on one point concerning the speech of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch), who

suggested that the Minister had said that he had purposely introduced a bad Clause in the Standing Committee. I think the word he used was not "bad" but "vague." I should have thought that the Opposition would have been rather pleased at being allowed to take part in the deliberations and in being encouraged to help in arriving at a good Clause. That is democracy, as I understand it—to try to get the co-operation of both sides of the House in obtaining what we hope, and what every patriotic individual would hope, is for the good of the country, that is, a Bill which will improve the position of the steel industry.

Mr. H. Fraser: I am sorry in a way, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you had to call hon. Members on the other side of the House to Order, because obviously the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) was becoming a deviationist, and the development of the internecine feud which might have ensued would have been very interesting and entertaining to the public. The Minister justified the new Clause by saying that it was infinitely better than the first and rather spurious one which he put up, rather like an Aunt Sally, for us to destroy. It is certainly true that the first Clause was so sketchy that it was treated with ridicule and was withdrawn. It was a lamentable skeleton which is now replaced by some 90 lines of rather flabby flesh.
When the Minister tries to get the support of the House for this new Clause by saying that it is going to be a very good thing for the consumers and that it will make all the difference to consumers, we know full well on a perusal of this new Clause that that promise is meaningless. This Clause robs the House of almost any control and makes the sanction which this Consumers' Council could possess null and void. It is true that certain improvements have been made on the recommendations which we made from this side in Committee, but the chief improvement is that the non-Governmental members can meet together without the members of the Corporation. So far as Parliamentary control goes, these meetings will not be recorded in the minutes and will not be reported to Parliament. The only interesting meetings will be those that will be held by the Consumers' Council


as consumers when they are going to say what is wrong, and when they do not wish the members of the Corporation to be present, and it is precisely the records of such meetings which will not be laid before the House and over which the House will have no control.
The root problem is that, despite this façade of help for consumers, these Consumers' Councils will never work, have never worked and cannot work. All that is happening is that the Government, instead of being independent and above what is right and wrong as between consumer and producer, now becomes, as a producer, judge in its own case. We believe that, although we are prepared to accept this Clause as a certain improvement, the Minister's claim that it will make this Bill more palatable to the British public is arrant nonsense.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I think the original model which the Minister presented to us might be referred to as the futility model, and the present one, although a considerable improvement, hardly attains the great height of the utility model. I should like to refer to the Consumers' Council, because I do not think that this Clause will succeed in attaining its objective. With the best will in the world, I cannot believe that this machinery is going to have this effect. Consumers must obviously include those outside this country, because the export of steel must be one of the most important factors in the steel industry. I cannot conceive, with this Clause as it stands, how the interests of those who are engaged in the export of steel can be properly protected.
I happen to have been overseas recently in certain markets, such as Hong Kong, and I found that there was keen competition from Belgian and French steel, which sells under the price of British steel because of exchange manipulation, and from American steel. I cannot see how, when the industry is nationalised and this Consumers' Council, which will be a very slow motion body, is being set up, the industry will be helped at all. Of course, the simplest thing to meet the objectives of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) would be to include everybody, and that would be absolutely democratic. Every-

body would be included and we would have a general debating society on the matter. As the Consumers' Council is to be set up in this Clause, I do not believe it will really be of assistance to any material extent, because it will not lead to immediate consultation and action. It will become a vague sort of debating society for discussing things after they have occurred, and will not enable people to take necessary action beforehand. I think this Clause is an improvement, though it is not the perfect model. It would be very dangerous if we were to live in a fools' paradise and have the idea that this Consumers' Council is going to look after the interests of all consumers, whether in this country or overseas.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I should like to make one constructive suggestion, and perhaps in his reply the Minister may give an indication of his mind on this subject. In Northern Ireland we have no steel industry, but we are very large consumers of steel. In fact, I think we have the largest single shipyard in the whole world, and we also have very large textile machinery foundries like those of Combe, Barbour and Combe's and Mackie's, which export their machinery all over the world. Our workers there earn £9 per head in dollars against £3 per head in the rest of the United Kingdom, and this steel is the raw material in many industries that are of extreme importance to us. Already in the shipbuilding industry, I hear suggestions of competition coming from all over the world, and even again from Japan. If these fears prove to be true it will certainly have a very great effect upon employment in the shipbuilding industry.
I am quite sure that if the quantity, the quality, and the price of steel are all right, there will be no trouble or criticism from anybody in Northern Ireland. However, I suggest to the Minister—although the Clause does say that before appointing the members of a committee the Consumers' Council shall do so by reference to the locality and the production concerned—that in his reply he might mention that he will be willing to consult and keep in touch with the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland on this very important matter.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The Minister's speech has thrown a flood of


light upon this Bill for me. Many Clauses which hitherto seemed to be vague, illogical, unreasonable, or just plain nonsense have now become beautifully clear. It is obvious that the Minister was only putting up an Aunt Sally for us to knock down, and I think that his description must clearly apply not only to the Clause for which a new one is now being substituted, but to many others. I suggest to him that that is rather a bad and expensive method of draftsmanship; it would be far better in future merely to print the numbers of the Clauses and to leave blanks, when we could all move our Amendments as we please and the best one could be selected to go into the vacant space.
I wish to address one direct question to the Minister. Earlier this afternoon he relied upon the Consumers' Council for the fact that he could be questioned in Parliament about particular matters brought before that council. How does he envisage that that will arise? As I read the new Clause—and I read it with some attention—it seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to raise any matters in Parliament, at any rate at a time when it can be effective so to do. If the Minister will look at subsection (6), he will see that it says:
The Minister may give directions to the Corporation on any matter arising out of any conclusion….
And so on. Presumably, therefore, we should be entitled to question him upon those directions, but we shall not know what those directions are because, presumably, they will not be published until they are presented to Parliament in the annual report which is to come before us. That report would, no doubt, be debatable, but by the time it comes before us there may not be much object in debating it. Clearly, the annual report of the Iron and Steel Corporation would have a greater claim upon the time of the House, and, in the present congestion of Parliamentary business, it is unlikely that we should be able to secure many Debates on the iron and steel industry. By the time that report appears, the matters in it will, in any case, cease to have very much relevance. Therefore, I should like him to explain what he meant by saying earlier in the Debate that this would give the House an opportunity of questioning him upon matters of such vital interest to consumers.
With regard to the advantages of this Clause, the Minister has obviously claimed far too much. It is not going to benefit consumers to any great extent; indeed, the Measures of nationalisation so far introduced have been much more to the advantage of producers than of consumers. As we have heard from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) and another hon. Member opposite, at any rate until you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pulled him up, even producers have not been satisfactorily guaranteed by those Measures. Quite frankly, I expect very little to come from this Clause. The experience of Consumers' Councils in other nationalised industries would not encourage me to believe that very much use will be made of this council, or that, if use is made of it, it will have very much effect. The real protection—indeed, the only protection—for consumers comes from the ability to go to some other supplier, and that ability will be removed from them by this Measure. I cannot oppose this Clause because the intention behind it is good, but I do not expect any practical results to flow from it.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken so far has given the purpose of this Clause his blessing, but has pointed out, as I wish to do, that we must not expect much from what Consumers' Councils can do. It is one of the vices of nationalisation that when an industry is taken over in this way, some sort of body has to be set up to try to protect consumers. But how effective have they been up to date? A short time ago I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how often the Consumers' Council of the nationalised coal industry had met since it was set up. In his reply he told me that it had had nine meetings and that representations had been made to it by three groups of consumers. The fact that in nearly two years only three representations should have been made to the Consumers' Council about the types of coal and the shortage of coal just shows how little confidence the public has in such councils. I only hope that this one will work better. I think that a little more attempt has been made to make it a workable proposition, but inherently it must be unworkable for this reason.
I wish to return to the theme which I mentioned earlier about the public interest. The consumer's interest is not the public interest; the consumer's interest is to get the goods he wants to consume as cheaply as possible, come what may to the council. If the council is to do its job properly, it is going to have views diametrically opposed to those of the Corporation who are charged under an earlier Clause with watching the public interest. That is why I urge the Minister to give us some definition and to set up some sort of court of appeal to decide what, in fact, is the public interest. I hold out very little hope that this Consumers' Council will be able to achieve anything more than the very mediocre results achieved by similar bodies already set up in other industries.

Mr. Attewell: I wish to refer to a particular matter in connection with this Clause which I feel should be given some attention. Unless we are very careful, we shall find that this consumers' council will be acting in the interests of the consumers of the raw material instead of in the public interest. When we consider that the firms who come within the Third Schedule have many subsidiaries, not only wholly-owned but partly-owned, we can understand the ramifications which the council would have to consider in its deliberations. If this council fails to take into consideration the public interest, it will mean that the iron and steel industry, the primary producers of the raw material, will become the milch cow for the ordinary concerns outside the nationally-owned companies.
Can the Minister give a definite undertaking that organisations representing the workers will be included on the council? As the Clause now stands, it says:
The council shall…consult with such organisations representing the consumers concerned and their workers as the Minister may determine.
6.30 p.m.
It leads one to believe, therefore, that organisations of workers will be considered when representation is given, but if we look further down, to lines 21 and 22, we see that one of the interests of consumers which will be discussed is that of prices. If prices are to be discussed, then it must be borne in mind that one of the most

important factors in a price is the wage element. If I may refer again to the fact that the council should be one dealing with the national interest, then it seems to me that someone should be present on the council whose duty it is to see that the council is informed upon that aspect of costs and prices. I ask the Minister to consider that.
I understood that the Minister said, in making the case that two members would be nominated by the Corporation, that the reports which were made would not be accepted unless the two nominated members of the council were present or, as is laid down:
unless the decision to do so has been approved at a meeting of the Council at which the members nominated by the Corporation were entitled to be present.
If the council is to be 15 to 30 members, and bearing in mind the fact that the council consists of consumers who are using the raw materials, it is obvious that at any meeting at which the nominated members were present they could be outvoted. In practice it means that the council can meet at any time without those two members being present and can make their report thereafter direct to the Minister. To my mind that proviso has little validity. Although I cannot go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), I agree with the purport of his remarks that the workers should be entitled to a representative upon the council. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the points which I have outlined.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To me the most interesting part of this new Clause is its essential naivety and the coals of fire which it heaps upon Socialist theorists opposite who started this idea, some years ago, that, because of internecine competition and growing monopoly these industries must be brought together, concentrated and nationalised in the public interest, that Ministers must preside over them and that Parliament would democratise them. After three and a half years we are seeing what we on this side of the House have always known—that the democratisation of these industries was quite impossible, that Parliament was too small a body, too inexpert, too busily occupied in other ways; and gradually, through these nationalisation Measures, there has


arisen this contrary idea of a consumers' council somehow to keep in order the new hierarchy of power set up by the Government, to see that consumers' grievances are redressed, to see that prices are fair and so on.
In this Clause we see the modern perfection of this device, and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) hails it as a splendid contrivance which, in more expert hands, can be improved but which on the whole is something which represents the highest state of advance which we have reached in economic democracy. We on this side of the House continue to think that conception is entirely wrong from beginning to end. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) rightly said, the chief defect is the lack of power on the part of these consumers' councils. How can they possibly exert sufficient pressure in the tug-of-war with the nationalised Corporation and its associated companies in order to see that there is fair play all round, that prices are fair, that quality is adequate and so on? They have no standard whatever by which to go; they have nothing but complaints inside their meetings. With this Iron and Steel Corporation under its umbrella, the Government have all the facts of the situation at their disposal. They have the works, they have the labour costs, the prices, the difficulty of acquiring raw materials, they have the difficulty of selling the finished products—all the multiplicity of details—within the Corporation. The consumers' council, on the other hand, has no access to the facts; it can do nothing but reflect resentment on the part of consumers that they are not getting the goods at proper value and proper prices. To me, the really terrifying thing about this whole conception is that it would be perfectly possible from the internal point of view—although I think the export situation is slightly different—for the products of the Iron and Steel Corporation and its associated companies progressively to rise in price and progressively to decline in quality without the country being aware of the trend at all, without the consumers being able to represent their grievances effectively on the consumers' councils.
What happens in competitive industry where the tug-of-war is equally divided

on all sides? These individual companies are competing with each other; they can force down prices and they can please the consumer on quality. They are fighting the battle, and that is the only way in which we shall ever ensure that the consumer is satisfied—by competition, regulated as we now know it must be; regulated without going back to the old day of internecine competition, but by competition between individual competing entities. This attempt to prevent the Corporation, with its associated companies, from roaring away in the future with lower quality products and higher prices is hopelessly inadequate. We on this side of the House feel that most definitely. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no hope of this country satisfying its consumers at home—although the export situation might be different, where we have competition between one great country and another; there is no hope of the consumer at home being satisfied under the operation of this Bill even with the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced today.

Mr. Beswilek: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in his suggestion that the only way to guarantee fair prices to the consumer is to go back to the days of competition. Although he says it is now to be a regulated competition, he does not say who is to do the regulation. I want to speak for a few moments upon the principle to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) has already called attention—the principle of the Minister appointing these consumers' representatives. The more I see of this business of running a large industry or of running a country the more I am convinced that we are putting far too big a responsibility upon human beings—far bigger than they can carry. I have the greatest regard for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I think if he were chairman of one of the iron and steel companies he would make an admirable job of it and he would be able to understand what was going on in that one concern. However, when we ask him to know the personalities of all the firms, and not of one only, and, in addition, to take on the responsibility for a big Government Department, and in addition to that, to be responsible for other large industries, we


seriously ought to consider whether one human being is physically able to comprehend all that is going on in the field of responsibility nominally under his control. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for one human being to shoulder this responsibility.
What exactly is the Minister proposing to do in this particular case? He is proposing to appoint certain people to run an industry, and he is proposing to appoint certain other people to watch over those running the industry. If we are to have a check through consumers' representatives, it would seem to be a sensible proposition that the people whose job it is to watch the others should be appointed by quite other people. I am quite prepared to admit that, when we come to set up an alternative system of electing representatives to the Consumers' Council, we meet many technical difficulties. I do not profess tonight to put forward an ideal scheme. All I know is that sometime, somehow we have to devise such a system of election to this Consumers' Council. We shall have to work it out as we go along. [Laughter.] Certainly, we shall.

Mr. Birch: That is the way.

Mr. Beswick: Certainly, as we advance from the old system which has been discredited. I do not propose to go back to the old system. I propose to go forward. However, I am prepared to admit that we cannot be dogmatic about the future path we propose to tread. If we are to have these representatives of the consumers, whether appointed by the Minister, or elected, as I think they should be, by some democratic system, from among the consumers themselves, then they must have power. They must be able to feel that they are of some significance, and that their decisions are listened to. I believe that they should have some direct connection with the Corporation at top level, and, indeed, I would suggest that there should be direct representation on the Corporation of the Consumers' Council. My right hon. Friend suggests that on the Consumers' Council there should be two members of the Corporation. I would put it to him that the much better way would be to have two members of the Consumers' Council,

appointed by the Consumers' Council, sitting on the Corporation itself.
The advantage of that would be, that they would feel that they could put their case effectively, that they could have access to all the information. There would be no feeling of frustration, or there would be less feeling of frustration and even if some of the feeling of frustration that exists or has existed in other spheres has been imagined, the fact that the consumers would be able, through their representatives on the Corporation, to put forward their point of view to the policy makers at the top would be extremely valuable. I should be out of Order, apparently, were I to go on to the question of workers' representatives, so I will leave it at this: firstly, we should have a much more democratic system of selection from among the consumers on a body of this kind, and, secondly, that the body itself should have some representation on the policy-making directorate.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Roberts: It is interesting to hear from the other side of the House, from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the classic argument against nationalisation, that one man cannot deal with these corporations. I think that, at last, the realisation of the failure of the theory of nationalisation is seeping through to the other side of the House. I wish with regard to this new Clause first to congratulate the Minister on subsection (1), in which he puts in a time limit of six months upon the setting up of the Consumers' Council. We have been pressing, on consideration of these nationalisation Measures, ever since the days of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, for the imposition of some limit of this sort concerning the setting up of such councils, because there have been lamentable delays, and I am glad that the Minister has, as he said, taken a stand, and I congratulate him upon it.
I would add one word of warning about subsection (10), about the regulations and rules of the Council, which have to be made with the approval of the Minister. I would point out that the Ministry of Fuel and Power has set up certain tribunals, and the tribunals themselves have taken a very long time to operate because they have not made their own rules and regu-


lations. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he will watch the making of these rules and regulations to see that it conforms with the speed necessary.
The second point I want to make is that this Council as such will be effective only as far as the big consumers are concerned. In the coal industry only three applications have been made to the appropriate council. One can understand that. No big consumer is going to bring an action, so to speak, against his own supplier. It is only at the end of the industrial dispute that the consumer says, "All right, I shall take you to the council." Therefore, it is only the big consumer who is likely to use the council in this way. I want the Minister to consider the small consumers. For instance, in connection with coal, and in my own constituency, I have heard complaints from housewives about the quality of the coal they are getting. It is not likely that housewives will take such complaints up to London to the Consumers' Council. Subsection (8) says that the Council "may" with the approval of the Minister appoint committees, perhaps by reference to locality. It is to the word "may" that I object. Will the Minister consider altering it to "shall"? If this Council is to work it must have local committees. In the new gas industry setup we have certain local committees, even though they are very big.
Speaking as a representative of Sheffield I demand that we have a local committee of the Consumers' Council set up in Sheffield. I hope that other hon. Members for Sheffield, even those on the other side of the House, will support this demand. Sheffield is responsible for about half of the whole steel product of the United Kingdom, in point of value. Unless there is a local committee there, to which Sheffield people can go, this Council will not work. Small consumers will not go up to London to the main Council. Therefore, I make this definite demand on the Minister that he will consider making it compulsory for the Council to appoint these local committees. I demand also that Sheffield shall be one of the places that has a local committee. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer, so that I may know if he will consider making an Amendment to this effect, or whether he will leave it to the wish of the Council itself. These

big central councils do not tend to delegate their functions. They may be given powers to delegate, but they do not tend to delegate, and I should like to see a duty placed upon the Council to set up committees, and particularly, to set up a committee in Sheffield.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I intervene in this discussion for a moment only, because I think it would be quite wrong that there should be no comment from this side of the House on the very remarkable speech made a little while ago by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). I thought that his argument was an interesting one. He gave, I think, general support to the Clause because it did concede in some way, according to the Minister's argument, at any rate, the principle of Ministerial responsibility in the House of Commons for this great national interest. The hon. Member, however, devoted the greater part of his speech to a very severe criticism of the Clause for its ineffectiveness in doing that. He thought that this was a very important matter, that great national interests were involved, and that it was quite wrong that the public should have no means of questioning the operations. He thought that the Clause was a bad one because it gave so little opportunity to do that.
I wonder what opportunity the public have to do that now. Suppose that we do not pass this Bill steel is just as important a public necessity as if we do pass the Bill. According to those who oppose the Bill, it will be an even more important interest in that case, and, therefore, it is very relevant to the hon. Member's argument to answer the question of what control there is, if we do not have the Bill at all. The answer, of course, is that there is none at all. The hon. Gentleman is not content with that. He is not content with this Clause because it does not make the interest answerable enough in the House of Commons. I do not want to delay the House on this matter, but I think that was a very remarkable argument to come from a man who parted from his colleagues because he did not want a Bill which would render this national interest and this national property subject to the responsibility of the House of Commons. He has parted with his colleagues and opposed them as bitterly as


he has done in the House and up and down the country for doing the one thing which he now complains is being too ineffectively done by the Clause which the Minister has introduced.

Mr. Pickthorn: I want to raise one or two questions rather small in themselves, though I think important in their consequences, but I wish to begin by raising one rather more general question which has not, I think, been discussed, Sir, in your hearing. It was referred to by almost all the speakers in the first part of the Debate, and that is the defence by the Minister of this new Clause on the remarkable ground that is better than the Clause in the Bill, and that the Clause in the Bill was deliberately sketchy, not thought out, but something which the Minister had toyed with, that was put in for the House to pull about. I am sure that I am not unfairly paraphrasing the Minister's defence of this new Clause. I think that it is a very great pity that the Leader of the House is not here. I had thought that everything that could possibly be done had been done to make nonsense of the argument (a) that these great nationalisation Bills, especially the steel one, are not matters of constitutional importance—and it is necessary for the honour of the Leader of the House to believe that—and (b) the argument that if the Guillotine is brought in that is the fault of the Opposition, and that ample time is allowed for the full public discussion of these great Measures and if there is not full public discussion that is the fault of the Opposition.
Those two propositions have to be believed by the Leader of the House and by everybody on the other side who regards a party as an entity capable of having any honour. But here we have something new done contrary to those propositions. How can either of those propositions be believed? We have this nonsense put up that, of course, it was a sketchy Clause just put in to be shot at, and that the Minister, when he brought this Bill before the House for Second Reading, knew quite well that the only Clause concerned with consumers' protection was ineffective, ill-drafted and sketchy. That is what he has told us. How does he wonder that time was found necessary by the Opposition to discuss

this? I challenge the Minister that I am not in any way unfairly parodying what he has said. I think that some other Minister ought to tell us whether that is Government policy; perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us before we leave this matter whether it is the Government's policy that Ministers should introduce an immensely complicated Bill which should contain Clauses not designed as exactly as possible to provide law but merely sketched as a pastime for debate.
There are one or two smaller things about which I want to ask. One concerns subsection (2, b) about the bodies to be consulted, which include organisations representing workers. I am not for a moment arguing that there ought not to be persons commended to the Minister by the trade unions, which, I suppose is what this chaste, periphrasis means. For all I have to say to the contrary, it may be absolutely essential that there should be representatives of the trade unions appointed under paragraph (b); but I should like to have that explained to us. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will help us. What is the effect of these words? The Minister has to consult with bodies. Does that mean that he must not consult with individuals except as representing bodies, or does it not? I think that it is of some importance that we should know. If it does mean that he must only consult with organised bodies, I think that we ought to have more indication of the sort of bodies than can be gathered merely from the fact that one sort of body is to be trade unions, which is all the guidance given by the Clause as printed: I think that we ought to be given something more than that. The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Haworth)—I do not know if he carefully read this part of the Clause—said that the council was entirely the wrong body for the employees to be represented on. I dare say that he is right, but the only thing clear is that the only bodies who are certain to be more or less indirectly represented—

Mr. Haworth: I am sure that the intention of this Clause is not to put representatives of the employees in the industry on the council—the workers, yes, but not the workers in the industry—the Trade Union Congress, I imagine, or the trades council.

Mr. Pickthorn: That may be so, but we should have it more authoritatively explained than by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I am still not clear what is meant about it. I should have thought that it would have meant trade unions in the industries which use steel. That would have been my guess. Of course, every industry uses steel, directly or indirectly, more or less, but at what point of indirection are we disqualified from saying, "Please, I am a trade union that uses steel," I cannot guess at all. I should have thought that we ought to have had some indication about that.
There is a point here which I hope the Solicitor-General can deal with—it may be that this is a common form or has been fully explained on earlier and similar Bills subsection 4 (a, b and c). Under paragraph (a) and again under paragraph (c) the matters referred to must affect the interests of the consumers, but under paragraph (b) the matters referred to need not affect the interests of the consumer. This is a council for protecting the interests of consumers. It is, curiously enough, appointed not by consumers but by the Minister and the various people who refer things to it must refer only those who concern the interests of consumers, but the Minster may refer things to it whether or not they concern the interest of the consumers, upon the face of it, unless there is some legal implication which I am not learned enough to guess, or unless there is some other explanation which has already been given and with which other Members of the House are familiar, that is the effect.
7.0 p.m.
There is another question I should like to put, and I hope that perhaps again the Solicitor-General may tell us about this. What does subsection (13) mean? On the face of it, it seems to be what is called, I think, an identical statement—although I am never very good at formal logic:
Every member of the Council and of every committee appointed by the Council shall hold and vacate his office"—
it sounds rather as if it were cup and ball—
in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
What on earth does that mean? Perhaps, again, there is some legal common form about this which makes it necessary to put in these words, but on the face of it

it seems to me to add absolutely nothing, and I really do think that we ought to have it explained to us.
My last particular question—perhaps I will then ask one more general question—is on subsection (16), about the regulations which the Minister may, after consultation, issue to make modifications. I apologise to the House here. I expect those who have been on the Standing Committee of this Bill are familiar with the Clauses, which generally come near the end of a Bill, about orders, regulations, statutory instruments, and so on under this Bill, and may be able to guess whether and in what sense and to what extent the regulations under subsection (16) of this Clause will be subordinate to Parliamentary authority; that is to say, will they, for instance, be prayable, and so on? It may be that hon. Members who sat throughout the proceedings of the Committee fully apprehend the answer to that, but I do not think the rest of us do, and I do not think we ought to part with this Clause without having that explained to us.
Lastly, I would return to my general point and say—if it is not both fulsome and impertinent for one Member of Parliament to pat on the head his colleagues corporately—that this Debate has not, I think, it will generally he agreed, had more irrelevance or repetition in it than the average Debate in this or any other place. I think it would be generally accepted that this has been a fair Debate, not irrelevant and not repetitive. Now look how much time it has taken. I do ask right hon. Gentlemen, particularly in what one might call the "first eleven" on the other side, whether they really do think it is fair to put guillotines on and to be bringing this sort of thing before us at this sort of stage, requiring the amount of discussion that this Clause does. I would make a large bet that half those now in the House do not now at this moment understand this Clause very clearly. I freely admit that I do not myself.
I should like once more to ask the Treasury Bench if they can a little more fully and clearly expound to us what they expect to be the relation between this Clause and Parliamentary Questions. I think that is still obscure. I quite understand that when the time comes it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule about any particular Question or class of Questions,


and that anything said now from the Treasury Bench will have no relevance then. But the whole purport and meaning of this Clause and the previous Clause, and particularly of the relations between these two Clauses, is entirely black or white, as the case may be, according to whether there will or will not be ample opportunity, both practically in the sense that Members of the House will be able to get hold of the relevant facts in time, and secondly within the Rules of Order.
What is the relation between these two Clauses—the second of which we are now coming to the end of and the first of which we dealt with earlier this afternoon—and the right of Members to put Questions on the Order Paper? That is a matter, I undertake to say, not understood by anybody in the House now, with the possible exception of someone on the Front Bench opposite. If there be such an exception on the Front Bench opposite he ought to get up and bring the rest of us into that distinguished category of which he is at present the unique member.

Mr. W. J. Brown: This Clause is ostensibly what I might describe as a mechanical Clause—a Clause which constructs a piece of machinery to do a certain job. But although it is a mechanical Clause, it does in fact raise a very deep issue of principle. That issue of principle is perhaps best illustrated by the exchange which took place between the hon. Members for Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). It was the submission of the hon. Member for Keighley that although this Clause was well intentioned it was bound to be ineffective. It was the retort of the hon. Member for Colne—

Mr. Pickthorn: Why leave out "Nelson"?

Mr. Brown: Because I felt that the hon. Member hardly applied the Nelson touch, on this occasion at any rate, although he often does. It was his submission that if this Clause was ineffective in giving the consumer any real voice in the determination of price, quality, and what-not, we were no worse off, because the consumer had no effective measure of control or influence now. If we approach this Clause with that in mind we shall

go astray. It is not true that the consumer now has no power of influencing the course of events. It may well be that some people do not like the method that he exercises, but it is no good saying that he has not got any method, for the truth is that if he does not get what he regards as a fair deal from one firm he is free to transfer his custom to another firm.

Mr. Mitchison: Not for tubes.

Mr. Brown: Quite obviously, in a general argument I cannot go into every category of steel production. It may be that there are particular types of steel production in which, in effect, there is only one producer. Even if that be the case, in the industry as a whole there is a right of choice on the part of the consumer. Hon. Members opposite may well argue that that right of choice—or, to put it in another way, that freedom of competition—carries with it social consequences so grievous as to outweigh the advantage of the freedom of choice. Now, I am not going into that argument, because that takes us right into the whole issue of whether we should nationalise or not nationalise, which would not be appropriate on this Clause.

Mr. Birch: "Labour Believes in Britain" is very much in favour of competition, I understand.

Mr. Brown: Again I do not want to be diverted from my main argument. I only want to say that it seems to me that there is upon those who declare that the disadvantages of the freedom of choice are so great that that freedom of choice must be taken away—a very strong onus to devise some alternative and effective means. If we are to have an artificial substitute for the natural means, we must take steps to see that that artificially constructed alternative can be made effective. With great respect, I say that nobody in his sober senses can pretend that this Clause will give the consumer any effective influence or control whatever.
Let us see what it is to consist of. It is to consist of a consumers' council, which will be presided over by an independent chairman. Now, he will be appointed by the Minister. There will then be not less than 15 or more than 30 other persons, also appointed by the


Minister. There will then be two members of the Corporation nominated by the Corporation, which itself will have been appointed by the Minister. So that for all practical purposes all the 32 members—if that is the maximum number; it will be 18 to 33 with the independent chairman—will have been appointed by the very Minister whose activities and directions to the industry they are supposed, if not to control at any rate substantially to influence.
This is, indeed, not even appealing from Philip drunk to Philip sober; it is appealing from plain Philip to plain Philip. This is a problem which has to be considered in the new economy we are building up. Whether we like the economy or not, it presents new problems, and the first problem it presents is how, when we substitute super-monopoly for either competition or partial monopoly, we can keep that super monopoly in the hands of the public. That is the problem, and we do not find the answer in any consumers' council. We have seen that in the case of coal. The average working woman in my constituency who writes about coal, the quality, the price or the amount of slate in it, writes to me because she regards me, firstly, as her Member of Parliament, secondly, because I am extremely accessible and, thirdly, because I am intensely human. Does anyone believe that the average woman in the back streets of Blackpool, Birmingham, Nelson and Colne, or Rugby, when she is told, as I shall have to tell her, "My dear, you have a consumers' council now. It is no good coming to me, you must go to the consumers' council," that she will go anywhere near the council?

Mr. Attewell: Is it not the case that this Consumers' Council is not so much for the housewife but for the users of the raw material?

Mr. Brown: It is perfectly true that the average housewife does not order tons of steel, but she does go around ordering an occasional 5 cwt. of coal. One would not expect the housewife to go to the consumers' council in the case of the steel industry in the same way as she would go to the consumers' council in the case of the coal industry. The point I am trying to make is that we cannot get her

to go to the coal consumers' council, because she regards it as a piece of officialdom that is potentially hostile and certainly alien, between which and her there exists no organic relation. The consumers' council, in the case of the coal industry, has not operated to give us clean coal, and it has certainly not operated to give us cheap coal. I know that the comparison is unfair, and I make it therefore with reservations. I remember coal being delivered to my house at 14s. to 16s. a ton.

Mr. Fernyhough: And the miner receiving 3s. 6d. a day.

Mr. Brown: I agree that there was a monstrous social injustice. The miners and the agricultural workers—the two most socially useful bodies—have always been at the bottom of the wages list except in times of war, and I welcome the change which has taken place. But do not forget that the price of coal is now about £5 5s. per ton instead of 16s.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member would not argue that because the consumers' council set up under the coal nationalisation legislation is not very effective—conceding that for the sake of the argument—it necessarily follows that this totally different council for a totally different industry and totally different class of consumer will also be ineffective?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Brown: I would be the last person to allege that there is a meticulous identity between one industry and another—of course, they are all different. What I want to tell the hon. Member, and this will be found in the insurance world, is that the attitude of the individual man or woman in the back streets dealing with an insurance agent is one thing, but when that agent is put behind a desk in a Government office the relationship is immediately altered. I have seen that from both sides of the Civil Service. I say, therefore, that this cannot be an effective way of giving the consumer a voice in the determination of price control, and I urge, not with hostile intent, that now that we have a large parcel of industries under national ownership, with more scheduled to come under national ownership, the Government must apply their mind to the problem of how to ensure that these vast monopolies


are kept under a measure of public control. The present situation is that they are not being kept under public control.
I do not know what Mr. Speaker's Ruling will be about questions on the Corporation or its constituent firms. Suppose that he gives the most liberal Ruling, and that we can interrogate the Minister not merely on the Corporation, but on the 106 firms. How much really effective influence can we bring to bear upon the Minister, even if we had that liberty? All that we should get beyond that would perhaps be a day's Debate once a year. Presumably we should have an annual report from the Minister, with perhaps a day's Debate, in which half a dozen Members on each side of the House may participate, but they will not be able to affect the decision of the House which will be taken by whatever the majority may be at the time. In the case of the Post Office we have considerable freedom to interrogate. We can interrogate in detail on telephones, mail deliveries, wages of postmen and all sorts of other things, and on top of that we have a Debate on the Estimates. Does anyone believe that we exercise any effective control as a Parliament over the Post Office? Bless my soul, if we had, the Post Office would not be making a profit of between £13 million to £20 million, because that is the absolute negation of the principle of "production for use and not for profit."
Suppose that there is a big deficit in the industry. Presumably that will introduce budgetary considerations. Suppose that there is a big profit. Then comes the question whether the profit ought to be devoted to the relief of taxation, the improvement of wages, or reduction in prices, or a combination of all these three things. How can that be regulated—

Mr. Lyttelton: The public interest.

Mr. Brown: That is all very fine, but the trouble about phrases like that is that they have to be stepped down from generalisation to practical decision. The public interest includes wages, prices and the level of taxation. How can a consumers' council, constructed, on the model outlined here, deal effectively with that? If they cannot deal with it, and we cannot, what is the logical conclusion? That we shall have created a super-

monopoly which is outwith the control of anybody except the Minister. Little as I dislike tyranny when exercised by employers, I like tyranny when exercised by Government Departments very little better, and I therefore hope that the Government will consider the whole problem of the relationship between nationalised industries and the public interest, as it is involved in the Clause now before the House.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: It is obvious that the Minister and his officials have been extremely industrious since the Committee stage in their efforts to draft this voluminous Clause. No one will quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman in his statement that the Clause raises a point of very great importance, but what he did not say was what he had in mind about its operation. With great respect, this is not so much a matter of Ministerial verbosity as administration. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) put his finger on the spot a short time ago, I think, when he asked whether this would be a practical body or a facade. After all, the steel industry has plenty of consumers; directly and indirectly the number must be immense. It is, by the way, interesting to note that the party which, at Hastings the other day, hoisted the flag of the consumers' interests has been completely conspicuous by its absence during the whole of this discussion. However, that is a matter for them and not for me.
When introducing the Clause, the Minister said that the Consumers' Council would remedy certain consumers' problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) dealt with that effectively when he pointed out that what is embodied here is the word "may," which he was anxious to change to "shall." I think that is a relevant point because it is not so long ago since a body of a similar kind was established under another Measure—the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act. I had the honour to serve on the Standing Committee which dealt with that Measure when there was produced, with an equal flourish of trumpets, the National Investment Council. We said then, "Here is a stage army, a piece of window dressing." That was three years ago. The Solicitor-General will no doubt remember that that Council has held one meeting a year


since then, and has now fallen into a desuetude which is a prelude to official recognition of dissolution.
I believe that Members on both sides of the House are entitled to ask what is envisaged in the operation of this Consumers' Council. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has instanced a number of the principal difficulties which arise over this proposal but as time presses, and as there is another matter which, we would like to discuss before the Guillotine puts an end to Ministerial discomfort, I will add only this: were the Clause twice as voluminous, twice as intricate, and had even greater efforts been made to meet all those who have raised objections on this subject the fact would still remain that the consumer cannot be protected at all under any system of nationalisation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): I am sure that the House will agree that we have had a very interesting Debate on this Clause. As has been pointed out, there is not a lot of time left, so I shall be unable to give answers to all the points which have been raised. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said that the Clause was a good one, that the Government had taken notice of what was said in Committee—we pay tribute to the constructive ideas which were put forward there—and that it was a great improvement on the one which was originally in the Bill.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but I went on to say that although it was the best that could be devised in the circumstances, it would prove to be entirely ineffective.

Mr. Jones: That should not require to be said, because anything put forward by the Government is always assumed by the Opposition to be completely and hopelessly ineffective. Much has been said about my right hon. Friend deliberately designing a Clause which would be negligible in effect. This is what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading:
It is essential that where there is a powerful monopoly consumers should be able to get their grievances not only aired, but righted. This is normally impossible under a privately-owned monopoly. But it can be done under a publicly-owned monopoly. To do this the Bill proposes the setting up, either of a number

of consumers' committees, or one consumers' committee with a number of sub-committees, where the views of consumers can be fully considered.
This is the important part:
The Bill does not say precisely how these committees will be composed, for the very reason that we consider it to be of the greatest importance that they should be swift and effective; and this, we feel, can best be secured after consulting the consumer interests concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th November. 1948; Vol. 458, c. 68.]
My right hon. Friend said it was his intention to take advice from all consumer interests and trade unions. The right hon. Member for Aldershot has said that, although he does not like the Clause, it is the best that can be expected in the circumstances.

Mr. Pickthorn: Surely the Minister must correct his hon. Friend in this. The Parliamentary Secretary read out words which, clearly, were defending the Clause as then drafted, and went on to say that they made it plain that the Minister meant to listen to representations for re-drafting. But the right hon. Gentleman must know that what the words said and meant was that the Clause was drafted loosely and flexibly in order that the opinion of the Committee might be such as he might desire, and not in order that there might be more amendment in its passage through the House. I appeal to the Minister to correct his hon. Friend.

Mr. Jones: There is no need for my right hon. Friend to correct me. I have read the words in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The intention of my right hon. Friend was not to lay down any hard-and-fast rule about the Consumers' Council. The right hon. Member for Aldershot smiles, but that was my right hon. Friend's deliberate intention.

Mr. Lyttelton: I smiled at the idea of words being put into the Bill and the hon. Gentleman saying that he did not know what those words meant.

Mr. Jones: I have not said that I do not know what the words mean. In my simple way, and with lack of that kind of education which is often evidenced by what is thrown across the Floor of the House, I perfectly well understand what those words convey. The intention was deliberate. It was that my right hon. Friend would listen to consumers' points


of view and, arising therefrom, would introduce, at a later stage, a re-drafted Clause, which is the one now before the House. If the Opposition care to interpret that intention as being something different, that is their affair and not the affair of the Government.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) took the opportunity of airing his views on the question of the interest of the workers on the Consumers' Council, but he went rather wide of what this new Clause intends. If he would read it carefully and study the constitution of the Corporation itself, he would find that room has been made for the interests and points of view of the workers. They will be taken care of on the Corporation itself and room has been made inside the Consumers' Council for them. They are one of the bodies referred to by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), whose legal points will be dealt with by the Solicitor-General. The question as to who are the consumers is interesting to the workers.

Mr. Cooper: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the workers' point of view, was provided for. I did not follow what he meant by that. Does he refer in that respect to a system of joint consultation which is going to be taken up? If so, the point I should like to make is that it is ineffective unless there is a top-level body on which joint consultation can express its point of view.

Mr. Jones: I do not want to press this in any great detail, but I want to make the point that the workers' bodies will be represented at least by one individual on the Corporation itself. On the Consumers' Council there will be, as laid down, room for the workers' interests to be represented. No consumer could put forward points of view as to prices, quality or quantity without the interests of the workers and their wages and conditions being considered. It would be physically and practically impossible to do so, particularly in the iron and steel industry, where the workers' interests and wages are so vitally tied up to production.

Mr. Attewell: I appreciate the point of view put by the Parliamentary Secretary. He has just stated that the workers will be taken care of, and if that is so, will it not require the word "may" in the

Clause to be altered to the word "shall"?

Mr. Jones: No.

Mr. Attewell: Might I finish my argument? There will be a change of Parliament, and as this is left to the Minister, a wise person would look to the future and would note that possibly a future Minister would interpret "may" to mean "not include."

Mr. Jones: The word "may" is the correct one to use. To lay down the word "shall" in this respect would involve us going into details of prices, constitution, and so on. It is a matter for the council itself to take care of, as they surely will. When we speak of the consumers' interests we have in mind the engineer at his bench in works such as that controlled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, whose concern uses a tremendous amount of steel for the various articles which are produced. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough can definitely take it that the interests of the workers will be taken care of both on the Corporation and inside the Consumers' Council.
The question of time is important, and I could elaborate on this to a greater extent, giving an interesting discourse on how this problem of workers' representation might be solved, and so on. In the workers' councils discussions in regard to quality, quantity and prices are taking place every day of every week, and the Consumer's Council will be the funnel through which these questions will go to the Corporation to be taken care of. Anyone with a practical knowledge of the industry knows that this system can be worked as stated.

Mr. Harrison: This point is of great importance to us on this side of the House. My hon. Friend suggests that a workers' representative will be on the Corporation. Will that not be a precedent in establishing these different boards, because in no other nationalised industry have we got a workers' representative? What we have is someone selected from the ranks of the workers, which is not the same thing.

Mr. Jones: The point raised by my hon. Friend seems to indicate that the person selected is elected from amongst


the workers directly on to the Corporation, but that is not so. What I said was that the workers' interests would be taken care of, because there would be on the Corporation at least one person who would take care of the workers' interests. I said that and I mean that. I must leave it at that. The question of industrial democracy and the other interesting arguments put forward by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough is a subject on which we could spend a considerable amount of time.
The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) made the point that this would be a matter of producers versus consumers, and that this would develop into a struggle between producers and consumers. He said that in both cases they would seek to get the best possible out of the industry for themselves. The intention of this Bill is to get the best possible out of the geological wealth of this country for the benefit of the whole people and not for the benefit of any individual interests. To suggest that the present set-up in the industry will be so altered as to create the system suggested by the hon. Member for Flint is a libel both on the management in the industry and on the grand men who are doing what they are doing at the present, and whose performances have earned the admiration of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why nationalise it then?"] We hear cries from the Opposition, "Why nationalise it?" The performance now taking place, which is resulting in increased tonnage day by day, and by which output increases the more the nearer we get to the day when this Bill will become law, is due to the workers' knowledge that nationalisation is coming. We will leave it at that.
The hon. Member for Flint raised the question of coal. In reply, may I say if the Opposition had been left in charge of the country after the last election we would not at this moment be discussing the question of the price of coal, but whether there would be any coal at all. That is important. The hon. Member went on to suggest that my right hon. Friend and the Government knew that the prices would increase. That, too, is a libel upon those people left in charge of the industry, and who at the moment are so successfully doing their job.

Mr. P. Roberts: Mr. P. Roberts rose—

Mr. Jones: I have not the time to give way. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), to whose contributions in Committee we listened with care and attention because he has some practical knowledge of the industry which gives him the right to speak with authority, talked about the "spurious" Clause which my right hon. Friend originally put in. I explained as carefully as I was able that it was not put in with the intention of being spurious, but of seeking information and later bringing before the House a Clause which would meet the wishes of the Opposition and the country at large.
The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), whom I do not see in his place now, raised a question about the foreign consumer. This is a detail. The foreign consumer of our products will have his supplier in this country and, through the merchants, shippers and agents will have the right to put his points of view about the goods which he is receiving. In turn those points can he put through to the Consumers' Council so that any point which he has in mind can be raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) raised an important point connected with the great consumer interest of the shipbuilding industry in Belfast and in Northern Ireland. He may rest assured that the request that he has made will be taken notice of. Where the question of locality arises under the Clause, it will be taken into consideration, but I make no commitment at this stage. It is an interesting point which ought to be taken care of.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), in a further effort to belittle the Bill, raised points which were ably and conclusively dealt with by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I have no desire at any time to express my opinion in detail on the attitude of mind which has been portrayed across the Floor of the House of Commons, as it was in the Committee, by the hon. Member for Keighley. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) tried to make an argument that consumer interest is not the same as public interest. That is something new to me. The general public are, in the final analysis, the consumers and users of all that is produced in the iron and steel industry. The two terms "consumer


interest" and "public interest" are synonymous, to my simple mind. The question of what is the public interest could be debated here for many hours. On this occasion, because of the time taken by the Opposition, His Majesty's Government have not been allowed the time to give expression to what the public interest is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) raised questions similar to those put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough. He was rather worried about the workers' lack of representation. I am satisfied that we can give him further detailed information which will satisfy him. The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who has apparently gone to refresh himself, raised some major problems. He seemed to assume that when the Bill becomes law all the knowledge, the "know-how," the technical skill and financial knowledge which our people in the industry now have will not be at the disposal of His Majesty's Government.
One would be led to believe that immediately the vesting date occurs all the people who are today making such a magnificent contribution to our national recovery will cease to give of their best. He should not worry. I say, on behalf of managements and men, that so far as can be ascertained there is no indication that that will happen. The noble Lord's predictions were based upon a false assumption and are what he and some of his party probably would like to see happen. The noble Lord should not worry one tiny bit about it.
The noble Lord also said that there will cease to be competition. I could talk for a long time about competition. Members of the Opposition, and all who are well versed in the industry, know that the word "competition" has been eliminated for many years from the iron and steel industry in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Yes, for many years indeed. We must not forget the magnificent achievements that are taking place at this very minute inside the steel industry. They will continue, and indeed they will be improved upon as a result of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) paid a tribute to my

right hon. Friend, who, he thought, would be the ideal person to be appointed chairman of the Corporation. He went on to suggest that no one human being could control an organisation of the size of this industry. I would remind my hon. Friend that in America far greater organisations and production interests are being well taken care of by one individual at the top. Are we in this country less well able to control iron and steel than they are in America—the people whom we taught how to make iron and steel and run the business—and are we any less fitted to do it than they are? The answer is, of course, "No." The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) congratulated the Minister, not for the first time, and said he thought that the proposed new Clause would be very effective.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Lyttelton rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has the right to reply.

Mr. Jones: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly within his rights in moving, "That the Question be now put." I promise not to take more than two or three minutes longer. Many speeches have been made by the Opposition.

Mr. Jennings: On a point of Order. Should not the Minister curtail his remarks and allow some of these very important Amendments to be moved? Should he take so much time, when the Guillotine is coming?

Mr. Jones: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are the cause of the time being taken up, in that they have asked the questions. They no doubt wish to get the answers and I am answering their questions. I promised the House to give the best answers I could within the time left at my disposal. Long speeches have been made and many questions have been asked, and there would be a complaint if no answer were made from this side of the House. The Opposition complain, whichever way the cat jumps. The hon. Member for Ecclesall suggested that the council would only be effective for the big consumers. I assure him that the interests of the


specialists whom he knows best in Sheffield and who make such a contribution, value against volume, will be well taken care of. They employ the people who support this Government. We have a great interest there, and we must take care of it.

Mr. P. Roberts: Will the Minister give an undertaking?

Mr. Jones: I can give no undertaking either for Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, or any of the producing centres, that they shall have any specialised or preferential treatment under the proposed new Clause. The smaller men will be taken great care of, even to the point of workers' representatives. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), to whom we always listen with interest, described this Clause as mechanical. That was something new. If the Clause can work, we hope that the hon. Member's idea will be right and that this Clause will be a mechanical one which can work. The hon. Member went on to make various suggestions and put forward ideas of his own for making the Clause better.
I do not think there are any other points raised by the Opposition which require a specific answer. I apologise to the House for taking so much time, but the Opposition, and they alone, must hold themselves responsible, by having asked so many questions.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF IRON AND STEEL PRICES BOARD.)

(1) The Minister shall by order establish an Iron and Steel Prices Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") which shall consist of—

(a) a chairman who shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing appointed by the Lord Chancellor;
(b) a member appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies as producers;
(c) a member appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of consumers of the products of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies; and
(d) such additional members (if any) as may be provided for by the order and appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of producers in the iron and steel

industry other than the Corporation and publicly-owned companies or the interests of particular classes of producers or consumers in the industry or other special interests.

No person who is a member or officer of the Corporation or a director or officer of a publicly-owned company shall he qualified to be a member of the Board otherwise than as the member appointed by the Minister under sub-paragraph (b) of this subsection to represent the interests of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies as producers.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Board to consider—

(a) any representation which may be made to them by the Consumers' Council appointed under this Act or by any other person who appears to the Board to be a person affected or representative of the interests of persons affected, with respect to the prices charged by the Corporation or any of the publicly-owned companies for all or any of their products, including any representation alleging undue discrimination or undue preference in the charging of such prices; and
(b) any questions which may be referred to them by the Minister or the Corporation for consideration.

(3) When the Board have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid they shall make to the Minister a report thereon containing such recommendations, if any, as they think fit.

(4) Any order made under this section shall contain provisions—

(a) as to the constitution and procedure of the Board;
(b) requiring the Corporation to provide for the Board such officers and office accommodation as appear to the Board to be requisite for the proper performance of their functions, subject to the approval of the Treasury with respect to the number of such officers; and
(c) for the payment by the Corporation with the approval of the Treasury of remuneration and allowances to the chairman and other members of the Board and to their officers.

(5) The Minister and the Corporation shall provide the Board with all such information and other assistance as the Board may reasonably require for the proper performance of their functions.

(6) The Board shall make annual reports to the Minister of their proceedings and the performance of their functions, and the Minister shall lay each of such reports before each House of Parliament together with a statement of any action which has been taken by him in the period to which the report relates in consequence of recommendations made to him by the Board.

(7) Without prejudice to the exercise of any powers conferred by or under any enactment other than this Act on any Minister of the Crown or Government department, the Minister may give to the Corporation directions


of a general or specific character for securing compliance by the Corporation and publicly-owned companies with recommendations made by the Board under this section.[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I must do my best in the scandalously short time which remains to me to discuss what we believe to be the most substantial of the new Clauses on the Order Paper. So far the Debate has shown that we are on the threshold of a great many new problems none of which has been thought out by the Government. There has been a running fire about the question of Parliamentary-control o1 these nationalised corporations. We have received no satisfactory answer to any of our questions. The time has been wasted by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in answering nothing so far as I can make out, and we are still completely in the dark about Parliamentary control. We are in the dark about what the Government regard as the public interest.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was ingenuous enough to say that the public interest was synonymous with that of the consumer, but he is the last person really to think that. Or am I wrong? I would point out to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there are people called producers and that there are workers on the floors of the shops who are not in one part of their lives consumers at all. One of the reasons why we get irritated by the use of the phrase "public interest" is that the public interest must lie between the interests of consumers and producers and those of many other sections of the community. The Government get into great difficulty by trying to hide behind a phrase the meaning of which they do not understand. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that some of the monopolistic practices, the dangers of which, I quite agree, are very great, are there in order to protect employment as well as prices, and that the original duties put upon steel were as much to protect and increase employment in the steel industry as to improve prices.
As to the Clause which I am moving, there is a basic problem here. Is it pos-

sible to allow a basic industry enjoying the advantages of a tariff to fix prices at its own will. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) took a slight liberty with the facts when he suggested that the consumer now is completely unprotected with regard to the price of steel charged to him. He is fully aware that since 1934—

Mr. S. Silverman: I said nothing about price at all. I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) about answerability to the public for the conduct of a great national interest and I was pointing out that but for this Bill, there would be no answerability at all.

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member looks at his words in HANSARD tomorrow he will find, I think, that I am not misquoting him, but I will leave the point if he wishes. Any suggestion that our solution to this fundamental problem is that we should permit the industry to combine and fix prices itself is quite false. We believe in the continuation of the present system, but we believe that the price list of the steel industry should be subject to Government supervision and control. This was the point which appeared to me—I hope I do not misjudge him—to be in conflict with what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said. If he now withdraws from that position, I am delighted that he does so.

Mr. Silverman: I have already repeated twice the only point which I made in my speech and the right hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of withdrawing any of it, because I do not.

Mr. Lyttelton: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was doing anything of the kind. I was only saying that from what he said he obviously accepts the fact that at the present moment the consumer is protected in regard to steel prices by the Iron and Steel Board which is under the Ministry.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say anything like that.

Mr. Lyttelton: We cannot go on with this. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his words gave an entirely wrong impression.

Mr. Silverman: Only to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lyttelton: His words can be read in HANSARD. We believe in the control of prices by the Government and we believe that the steel list should be submitted to, and agreed by, the Government all through the story, and the reason is that the principal danger in all monopolies is the power to charge prices and to maintain prices perhaps on falling demand and thereby to exploit the consumer. Another danger with a monopoly is the restriction of entry into the industry by other firms. Both of these features exist in their most acute form when we create a State monopoly. The whole of this system differs entirely from the matter of organising an industry where ownership and the responsibility for day-to-day management are in private hands. These are fundamental differences. More than once during the Debate on the Clause it has been represented that we believe that there should be no protection for the consumer at all in the matter of prices. That is not so.
This Clause which seeks to establish an Iron and Steel Prices Board is our attempt to try to make what must always be a vicious system a little less vicious. As the Bill stands at the moment, the State monopoly will fix its own prices, and the answer we have received is that it will fix them in the public interest. All the hon. Members who have spoken have taken a different view on what public interest is. It is always a matter of argument. I do not know whether it is in the public interest to charge £x a ton for galvanised sheets or not. It may be in the interests of the workers who are employed in the galvanised sheet industry to charge that price but it may equally be extremely injurious to those who expect to export those galvanised sheets to another part of the Empire. It may be that the consumer of galvanised sheets here is prejudiced by the prices which are being charged.
It is therefore absolutely vicious that a State monopoly should fix its own prices without any reference to any other body. That is what the Bill now seeks to do. It is particularly vicious in this case be-

cause the 'Minister is to regulate the prices in an industry for which he himself is responsible. We have heard from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) about Philip pleading for Philip. Here is another case. The Minister will regulate prices in an industry for which he is responsible and the powers under which he regulates prices are, by their very nature, almost, I was about to say ephemeral but they are at all events transient, because they come under the first Bill which came into this Parliament. The arguments which the Minister advanced against this Clause in Committee were that it would require an expert staff to run and that it would create greater complications. I suggest that there is no duplication between the work of this price body which we seek to set up and the Consumers' Council. Several hundred thousand—

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Stokes (Ipswich) rose—

Mr. Lyttelton: I am so pressed for time that I cannot give way. I have moved this Clause and I must now curtail my remarks.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: In the short time left I must say why this Clause is wholly unacceptable. The proposed board would not have the duty of fixing prices. All it would do would be to listen to complaints about prices made by aggrieved consumers or by the Consumers' Council and then, having considered those complaints, pass them on with its comments to the Minister. The board would require elaborate machinery and a large staff and would just be a committee which would be in the way. It would be quite useless. It would be a bit of bureaucratic machinery and would serve no useful purpose.

It being Eight o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 158; Noes, 320.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Baxter, A. B.
Bowen, R.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Bower, N.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Beechman, N. A.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.


Astor, Hon. M.
Bennett, Sir P
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W


Baldwin, A. E.
Birch, Nigel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Barlow, Sir J.
Bossom, A. C
Bullock, Capt. M.




Butcher, H. W
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.


Carson, E
Hope, Lord J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Channon, H
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V.


Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col. G
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Cole, T. L.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Jennings, R.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F G
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Kendall, W. D.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Ropner, Col. L.


De la Bere, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Donner, P. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Drayson, G. B
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. M.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Eccles, D. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Studholme, H. G.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Errol, F. J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'l'n, S.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McFarlane, C. S
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneyeroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Gage, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wadsworth, G.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Gridley, Sir A.
Mason, A. H. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Harden, J. R. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Haughton, S. G.
Nicholson, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Head, Brig. A. H.
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W



Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hogg, Hon. Q
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant and


Hollis, M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, J.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, George (Belper)
Dobbie, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burden, T. W.
Donovan, T.


Alpass, J. H.
Burke, W. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Callaghan, James
Dugdale, (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Carmichael, James
Dumpleton, C. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dye, S.


Austin, H. Lewis
Chamberlain, R. A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Chater, D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Ayles, W. H.
Chetwynd, G. R
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs, B
Cluse, W. S
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Bacon, Miss A.
Cobb, F A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Baird, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Balfour, A.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Collick, P.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Barstow, P. G.
Collins, V. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Barton, C.
Colman, Miss G M.
Ewart, R.


Battley, J. R.
Cook, T. F.
Fairhurst, F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cooper, G.
Farthing, W. J.


Benson, G.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. M.)
Fernyhough, E.


Beswick, F
Cove, W. G.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crawley, A.
Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)


Binns, J.
Crossman, R. H S
Fcllick, M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs.
Foot, M. M.


Blyton. W. R.
Daggar, G.
Forman, J. C.


Boardman, H.
Daines, P.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Davies, Edward (Bursiem)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Bramall, E. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gibbins, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Deer, G.
Gibson, C. W


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gilzean, A.







Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gooch, E. G.
McGovern, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Goodrich, H. E.
Mack, J. D.
Simmons, C. J.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Grierson, E.
MaLeavy, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bring)
Snow, J. W.


Gunter, R. J
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Solley, L. J.


Guy, W. H.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sorensen, R. W


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mayhew, C. P.
Steele, T.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Medland, H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mellish, R. J.
Stokes, R. R.


Hardman, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Monslow, W.
Swingler, S.


Haworth, J.
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Symonds, A. L.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morley, R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hewitson, Capt. M
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hicks, G.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham E.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Horabin, T. L.
Nally, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Houghton, A L N. D
Naylor, T. E.
Timmons, J.


Hoy, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Titterington, M F.


Hubbard, T.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Tolley, L.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealling, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)
Turner-Samuels, M


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Oliver, G. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
Viant, S. P.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Walker, G. H.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Janner, B.
Parker, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Jay, D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Watson, W. M.


Jenkins, R. H.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


John, W.
Pearson, A.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pearl, T. F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Perrins, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Popplewell, E.
West, D. G.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Keenan, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


King, E. M.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Randall, H. E
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Kinley, J.
Ranger, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Kirby, B. V.
Rankin, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kirkwood., Rt. Hon. D
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lang, G.
Reeves, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lavers, S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Leonard, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Willis, E.


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, A.
Willis, Mrs. E. A.


Lever, N. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willson, Rt. Hon, J. H.


Levy, B. W.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Wise, Major F. J.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Woods, G. S.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Royle, C.
Yates, V. F.


Lindgren, G. S.
Sargood, R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Logan, D. G.
Scollan, T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Longden., F.
Scot-Elliot, W.
Zllliacus, K.


Lyne, A. W.
Segal, Dr. S.



McAdam, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAllister, G.
Sharp, Granville
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.


McEntee, V. La T
Shurmer, P.

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? Are there any means open to us by which we can ask the Government to reconsider the timetable?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am afraid there are no such means. It is my duty to put the Questions in accordance with the Order made by the House.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Further to that point of Order Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Although I quite understand that it is not within the power of the Opposition to move a dilatory Motion, would it not be within the power of the Leader of the House, in view of the circumstances—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but no point of Order can arise here. It is my duty to put the Questions in accordance with the Order of the House.

Mr. Jennings: On a point of Order. There are vast interests outside this House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—

Mr. Jennings: I am rising on a point of Order.

Colonel Dower: Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cocker mouth) rose—

Mr. Jennings: I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats when I rise. In

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Corporation shall have power—


(a) to hold such interests in companies as vest in them under Part II of this Act, and to acquire by agreement and to hold interests in any company whose activities, including the activities of any subsidiary of the company, consist wholly or mainly of activities which any publicly-owned company (as defined in section fifty-eight of this Act) is immediately before the acquisition authorised by its memorandum of association or, as the case may be, by its charter of incorporation or other charter, to carry on;


(b) to form, or take part in forming, any company for the sole or main purpose of the carrying on by the company of any activities which any publicly-owned company is immediately before the formation of the new company so authorised to carry on or of the exercise by the new company of any powers conferred on the Corporation by the following provisions of this section, or of the acquisition and holding by the new company of such interests in other companies as the Corporation have power to acquire and hold; and


(c) to exercise all rights conferred by the holding of interests in companies:


Provided that—


(i) the Corporation shall not, without the consent in writing of the Minister, exercise their powers under this subsection so as to bring any company into public ownership or form a publicly-owned company, if the consequence thereof would be to increase the sum of the activities which the publicly-owned companies are authorised as aforesaid to carry on;


(ii) nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the powers of investment conferred on the Corporation by Part IV of this Act.


(2) The Corporation shall have power—


(a) to conduct research into any matters affecting the activities which any publicly-owned company is for the time being authorised as aforesaid to carry on, and to assist other persons conducting such research;


(b) to provide for the publicly-owned companies, or for any group of such companies, any services which in the opinion of the Corporation can conveniently be provided as common services for those companies or that group thereof.


(3) The Corporation shall have power, with the consent in writing of the Minister, to carry on any other activities which, at the time when the consent is given, any publicly-owned company is authorised as aforesaid to carry on."

The object of this Amendment is to formulate rather more precisely the powers which the Corporation desires to retain for itself. Those powers are for-

any event, no point of Order can possibly arise here, and in accordance with the Order of the House it is my duty to put the necessary Questions.

Mr. Jennings: Disgraceful.

MT. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eight o'Clock at this day's Sitting.

Clause 1.—(THE IRON AND STEEL CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, leave out publicly-owned company," and insert "subsidiary of the Corporation."—[Mr. Strauss.]

Clause 2.—(POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out subsections (1) and (2), and to insert:
mulated in subsection (2) and consist of the power to carry out research and to carry out common services for the publicly-owned companies. Subsection (3)


retains the general power for the Corporation to carry on other activities, but that is made subject to the consent of the Minister. This Amendment is designed to go some length to meet the criticism which was made of the original Clause during the Committee stage of the discussions on this Bill. Those criticisms were to the effect that the powers of the Corporation were too wide. It was desired to retain some measure of elasticity in the powers which the Corporation reserves to itself and those powers have been retained in the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether you wish us to debate the Government Amendment now or whether it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendments to the proposed Amendment, either as a whole or separately. They fall into certain categories.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am entirely in the hands of the House. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide how he wishes to deal with the matter. Presumably he wishes to move his Amendment and, incidentally, to deal with the Government Amendment.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out from "activities," to the end of line 8, and to insert:
specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act.
If it is convenient, I will deal at the same time with the similar Amendment in line 10; and the Amendments in line 22 and line 27, to leave out "as aforesaid." These Amendments fall into a general category and they might conveniently be discussed together. Although they deal with separate points they are all relevant to each other.
The Minister had adopted a procedure which perhaps has shortened our proceedings a little, because he has put up the most popular Member of the Government Front Bench and has sheltered behind him. We all have such a deep

affection for the Solicitor-General that I hope he will take our boos of him as symbolic of our view of the whole procedure to which we are subjected rather than against his person. This is another case where, on the general principle upon which this Bill was framed, most of the important Clauses are completely rewritten between the Committee and the Report stages. Here again we are becoming most complicated as between the composition and the powers of the Corporation. Here again we have a kind of telescoping of Clause 3, which is to be left out, and the powers are re-stated in this Clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
I say at once that, to some extent, the Amendment meets some of the points raised during the Committee stage. From that point of view it improves the Clause from our angle. It is all the more important because it gives in to some of the arguments which we felt it necessary to put forward; but it gives with one hand and takes back with the other. As in so many of our forms of legislation now, this says all sorts of things which sound all right, but then there are provisos to them and one has to read them with great care to find out what the Corporation can and cannot do. In our first Amendment, we should like to restrict this power to companies which are engaged wholly or mainly in Second Schedule activities. We want to restrict the power which the Corporation has to acquire by agreement interest in companies, to companies of that character; that is to say, to companies wholly or mainly engaged in Second Schedule activities. We have always thought, throughout the conduct of this Bill, that the scope of the Corporation and its subsidiaries ought to be restricted to what are genuine iron and steel activities.
Whether we approve or disapprove of the Bill, both we in this House and people outside generally regard it as a Bill the object of which is to set up a national Corporation for the ownership of the iron and steel industry. That really is its purpose. It certainly could not be said to be anything for which the Government have a mandate if, by taking over companies for the purpose of nationalising iron and steel, they are able to make use of the particular way in which the memoranda of association of those companies happen to be drawn to allow them


very much to widen their activities. It is a common thing for a private company to have a widely drawn memorandum The agreed and honest purpose of the Bill has been accepted to be that of nationalising the iron and steel industry but not, as a kind of by-product, to nationalise all kinds of other industries or to take interest in them. If this Amendment to the proposed Amendment were approved, it would have the effect of restricting the activities of the Corporation to those companies which are wholly or mainly engaged in the activities listed in the Second Schedule form of company.
In the Minister's Amendment, the Corporation can by agreement acquire interest in any company whose activities are covered by the memorandum of association of any publicly-owned company. Very often this is widely drawn. Thus the Corporation would be able gradually to extend over a very large area of privately-owned industry quite outside the main purpose of the Bill. We would get the sort of Breakages, Limited, to which Mr. Shaw first called our attention in "The Apple Cart" many years ago—a wide, growing organisation reaching far outside what is the purpose which hon. Gentlemen support and which we oppose. It should be limited to the iron and steel industry instead of spreading, by the mere use of the legal possibility of the memoranda of association, into something far outside. This is not to say that the subsidiaries do not already cover a wide area of industry. There is no justification for allowing an extension of that area, all the more so because I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the main purpose of his Amendment, which constitutes a re-writing of the Clause, is to turn the primary function of the Corporation more into the nature of a holding company than an operating company. That is its main purpose. That is all the more reason why it should not be possible to widen it by the mere use of the way in which the memoranda of association are drawn.
8.30 p.m.
The next Amendment would restrict to the carrying out of Second Schedule activities the purpose of any company which the Corporation might form or take part in forming. The first deals

with taking over existing companies where the memoranda of association might be used for this wider purpose, and the second deals with companies which they may form or take part in forming. Just as we wish to restrict the Corporation's power to acquire companies, which is what we seek to do in the first Amendment, so, in the second Amendment, we would like to restrict its power in forming new companies of this wider kind. Nor do we see for what purpose the Corporation would want to start a new company which is not wholly or mainly concerned in Second Schedule activities. There is only one purpose that I can think of, and that may relate to a company which is separate from any other and is for the purpose of importing scrap or ore or semi-finished steel, or even fully finished steel, to be re-sold upon the market. If that were the purpose, I should have thought that it was covered by the words "common services" in line 31 of the Minister's own Amendment.
I pass from these two-Amendments to the other two, which seek to leave out the words "as aforesaid." If the first two Amendments to which I have referred were accepted, these words would become unnecessary. Finally, in this group of Amendments, the fourth one, at the top of page 1670, in the same way would become unnecessary. These two latter Amendments are therefore consequential Amendments upon the first two. Of these four Amendments, the first two are the effective ones, and the two small ones are merely consequential upon them. I thought it would save the time of the House to deal with them in that way.
I have stated what is the purpose of our proposed Amendments to the Minister's Amendment. We recognise that the Minister's Amendment is intended to change the character of the Corporation from the original conception, or, at any rate, to make clearer that it is to be the kind of company that holds investments in other companies rather than directs or controls them or manages them directly. For that purpose, we think there is quite sufficient power even to take on a more central function, such as the purchase of ore and scrap as suggested in line 31; but we do not believe that it is right, and we have made this point all


through these Debates, that the mere fact that any existing articles of association concerning activities not normally associated with these particular companies should be made use of for any particular extension of the whole field.
Nor do we think that the Minister or the Corporation should have the power to start new companies for this wider purpose. We say that, for good or evil, if this Bill ever becomes effective, the Corporation might embark upon a pretty wide field of activities, covering an immense range of the total assets of management and men in a very large part of our whole industrial activity. It is going to be a pretty heavy burden upon the skill, intelligence, knowledge and experience of those who are engaged in the management of separate companies now functioning and still more of the Corporation. So far as we nave seen present nationalisation activities—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this as evidence of a desire to improve anything that is going to happen—we have seen, in the case of transport, how an entirely top-heavy set-up is having a very bad effect on the separate forms of transport, so that a steady deterioration has been the result. I think the Minister will be very wise to accept these Amendments, which could not seriously injure his major purpose, but would rather tend to restrict the activities of the Corporation to what are its quite difficult enough functions, which cover a wide and far-embracing field.

Mr. H. Fraser: The points made by my right hon. Friend are clear enough. What the Minister has done by his own Amendment is to turn the Corporation into a holding company, and what we are endeavouring to do is to ensure that the Corporation shall keep within the proper bounds of what is the main object of this Bill, which is to nationalise the relevant parts of the iron and steel industry. My right hon. Friend has pointed out where the dangers lie and what our Amendments attempt to cover.
I want to direct my attention to the second Amendment which seeks to amend subsection (1, b) of the Minister's Amendment. That Amendment empowers the Corporation—
to form, or take part in forming, any company for the sole or main purpose of the carrying on by the company of any activities

which any publicly-owned company is immediately before the formation of the new company so authorised to carry on….
—and so forth. What we are anxious to do, by means of this Amendment, which we hope the Government will accept, is to prevent any incursion into the field which the Lord President of the Council referred to as the private enterprise field, which is essential for the recovery of the country.
I should like to outline a few of the things in the manufacture of which the companies are engaged or are to be allowed to be engaged by reason of their articles of association, and they include, among coke oven and furnace byproducts, an enormous range of products, covering anthracene, basic slag, benzol, blast-furnace slag, coke, coke breeze, creosote, disinfectant, fertilisers, fire lighters, insecticides, naphthalene, pitch, prepared oxide, pyridene acid, sulphuric acid, sulphate of ammonia—a huge range of activities. I will not go into the constructional arrangements, but the miscellaneous iron and steel products include bedstead parts, bolts and nuts, bright drawn bars, rivets, springs coiled and laminated, steel castings, and so forth. There are also agricultural equipment, aircraft components and many other activities now engaged in by the companies about to be nationalised.
If there is any further extension, this Clause as it stands can be used by the Government as a battering ram to thrust right into the heart of what is left of the private enterprise industry. We believe that it is the intention of hon. Members. opposite, unless they belong to the extreme Left wing, to see that that section of private industry is maintained, because it is that which has to pay for the social services. If hon. Members opposite are not careful, they will find themselves in a position similar to that of the Hungarian Minister of Finance, who said that he regretted that they had nationalised so much, because they no longer had any means of revenue.
That is precisely the situation into which the Government will get themselves if they are not careful, and this Clause, unless it is amended, is extremely dangerous, not merely to one political party, which may be evanescent and may fade away, but dangerous to the whole country. We therefore suggest that these Amendments should be accepted. The


Minister has again changed his mind since the Committee stage, and perhaps he wanted to find out what were the best ideas that came from the Opposition. Perhaps he was not sure whether he wanted a holding company or not, but I assure him that this Clause contains a threat far greater than that from any international financiers or the Wall Street barons against this country. This Clause, if operated, will make the operations of Morgan's and all the big men in international finance small. Here is a chance for the Government, for the Government which may follow them, or for the Government which may follow the Government beyond that Government, of fighting their way right into British industry, of destroying it, and of setting up a totalitarian machine.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think it is necessan at this stage to state exactly what is the Government's intention in bringing in this Measure. We are nationalising the iron and steel industry, and it was never suggested when we brought in this Bill that the industry consisted solely of the making of those products which are specified in the Second Schedule. Those are the basic products of the iron and steel industry, and we found it a convenient method of stating which firms should be taken over by using a formula based on the Second Schedule activities, that is, the making of steel and hot rolling, and the making of iron, but it has never been suggested that the new Corporation should only be responsible for making the basic products of the iron and steel industry. We have always very firmly maintained that. if that were the real intention, or if any proposal of that sort were made, it would be ridiculous, because it would mean breaking the iron and steel industry into two. The making of the basic products is so closely related to the making of ancilliary products that it would be quite ridiculous to set up any body concerned solely with the making of the basic products. Therefore, we say that it should be the duty of the Corporation to be responsible for the making of these basic products almost entirely—to have practically a monopoly—and of a substantial proportion of the other principal products now made by the iron and steel industry.
The acceptance of the series of Amendments moved by the Opposition would

mean that we would take over the companies specified in the Third Schedule which are making the basic products and a large number of ancillary by-products and minor products of various sorts, but that the Corporation would be prevented from acquiring any other companies, or forming any other companies, which were making important iron and steel products—wire, for example—if those companies were not mainly concerned in making the basic products. The Opposition want the Corporation to confine themselves in the acquisition by agreement of new companies, or the formation of new companies, to those which are primarily concerned with the making of the basic products. We say that would impose on the Corporation a limitation which would be quite unreasonable, and one which has never been imposed on the iron and steel industry while in private hands.
It may well be desirable and economical to form some new company, or to acquire by agreement some company already in existence, and amalgamate it with a company already in the possession of the Corporation which makes an important product such as wire. There are many other important products for which the Corporation will be largely responsible, and it may well be desirable and economical that the Corporation should be able to extend their existing arrangements by acquiring companies by agreement—there is no compulsory acquisition here—companies which make similar products to those which the Corporation are already making, even if they are not the few basic products specified in the Second Schedule. For that reason, in order not to inhibit and restrict the Corporation more than necessary, and to give them that proper commercial freedom which any private corporation in a similar position should have—and, in point of fact, does have—I ask the House to reject this Amendment.
8.45 p.m.
I only wish to make one further observation. Throughout the consideration of this Measure, it has been our experience that whereas the Government are anxious to give the Corporation every opportunity to be successful, to be commercially adventurous, and to serve the public well, by giving them all those reasonable and proper facilities which are enjoyed by private firms at the moment, we have


throughout had various Amendments moved all designed to restrict, confine, limit and cramp the activities of the Corporation so as to give them the worst possible chance of being a commercial and national success. This is one of the Amendments—I could quote very many others—which would restrict the activities of the Corporation in a way which we think would be harmful and for which we can see no good public reason at all. For that reason, we ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misread the purpose of our Amendment; in fact, I do not think he has even attempted to read it. If he has, he has read it in connection with the wrong line. He has evidently thought that we propose to strike out the words after the word "activities" in line 3, whereas we propose to strike out all the words after the word "activities" in line 5. The whole point is that we leave in the words "consisting wholly or mainly." That means that we permit the Corporation to invest in or acquire firms which engage wholly or mainly in Second Schedule activities. "Mainly Second Schedule activities" include wire-making firms, or might include firms whose businesses consist of iron and steel activities and associated productive enterprises.
What we are seeking to do is to cut out the right of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Corporation to acquire any company whose activities consist wholly or mainly of such activities as a publicly-owned company has the right to enter into by virtue of its memorandum of association. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the memorandum of association of a firm like the English Steel Corporation, which is to be one of the publicly-owned companies, he will see there laid down a whole rigmarole of activities in which, it is true, that firm has never engaged, but in which it could engage. Those activities include such things as the manufacture of agricultural machinery, electrical engineering, tool making, and a number of other things which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) read out.
If that stands, the right hon. Gentleman or the Corporation would have the power, as regards the manufacture of agricultural machinery, to purchase a

firm like Ferguson Tractors. As regards electrical engineering they would be able to invest in or acquire a firm like that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), the Associated Electrical Industries, or the English Electric Company. As regards toolmaking, they would be able to do the same in the case of a firm like Alfred Herbert & Co. I have only taken those firms which are fairly near the iron and steel world. If only the right hon. Gentleman will read the memorandum of the association of one of those privately-owned companies, he will see the kind of thing which, if unaltered by us, it would be possible to do under his own Amendment. What we are doing—and it would be quite clear to the Minister if he would only read the Amendment—is to prevent the Corporation from going far outside Second Schedule and associated activities, which is what is meant by the word "mainly" which we have included.

Mr. Erroll: The Minister's interesting reply shows that he envisages possible and very considerable growth in the size of the Corporation. He accused the Opposition of trying to introduce Amendments designed to crab the Corporation whereas, he said, it is his purpose to give the Corporation all possible assistance in its work by providing the right Clauses in this Bill. But surely the Minister is encouraging the Corporation to go in for that form of growth and expansion which he and his party so much condemn in private industry—the growth of very large undertakings of a monopolistic character with a wide variety of ancillary activities.
We say that excessive size is very dangerous, whether in private hands or in the hands of a semi-State monopoly, and we think it is only right, therefore, that some curb should be placed upon the natural tendency of this Corporation to grow and go on growing. By all means let it acquire by agreement small independent companies engaged in Second Schedule activities, but surely there is no case at all for the Corporation to ego on steadily acquiring companies, whether by agreement or otherwise, engaged in activities which are not really connected with the iron and steel industry.
The Minister made special reference to the wire industry, but I prefer to take examples from the structural steel industry. Because the Ministry takes over one large company engaged in structural


steel work, that is no justification at all for the Corporation to set about buying out by agreement all other companies in this country engaged in the manufacture of structural steel, particularly when it would be so easy for the dice to be heavily loaded in advance in favour of the Corporation, especially when the Corporation can so easily influence the channels of supply to make small independent structural steel companies feel it might be better to sell out than to go on competing with structural steel companies already owned by the Corporation.
Furthermore, one sees what a very real temptation it may be for some of the smaller companies to sell out, because where sales have been made by agreement in the other nationalised undertakings—as in the case of the British Transport Commission buying out certain bus interests—the rates paid have been very attractive and it is questionable whether the deals have been really satisfactory from the point of view of the taxpayer. I think that the curb we suggest in our Amendment will not in any way hamper the activities of the Corporation but will, on the other hand, set a limit to their otherwise far-ranging activities. It will keep them on the job which they were brought into being to do—to produce iron and steel and to handle such ancillary activities as come their way at the time of the acquisition of the companies named in the Third Schedule. It is surely dangerous to allow them to buy out any companies they like, covered by the very wide articles of association of all their publicly-owned companies, solely in order to pay lip service to the belief that the Corporation must be entirely free.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a rather more reasonable answer on this point than that which he has already given. As I understand it, the Corporation can take the memorandum of association of any publicly-owned company, they can look at the various powers given by that memorandum and then they can go to some other outside company which is carrying on wholly or mainly one of these activities and can seek to acquire it.
If we look at the memorandum of association of some of these companies we see how very wide indeed is that power. I quoted to the Standing Committee part of the memorandum of the English Steel

Corporation. I will not go through the whole of it again, but I will quote the second part which I quoted in the Standing Committee. That Corporation has the power
to purchase, acquire, rent, build, construct, equip, execute, carry out, improve, work, develop, administer, maintain, manage or control in any part of the world works and conveniences of all kinds, including therein roads, ways, railways, tramways, carrying or transport undertakings by land, water, or air. stations, aerodromes, docks, harbours, piers, wharves, canals, reservoirs, water rights, waterworks, water-courses, bridges, flumes, irrigations, embankments, hydraulic works, drainage, iron, steel, ordnance, engineering and improvement works, gas-works, electrical works, telegraphs, telephones, cables, timber rights, sawmills, paper and pulp mills, crushing mills, smelting works, quarries, collieries, coke-ovens, foundries, furnaces, factories, warehouses, hotels, viaducts, acqueducts, markets, exchanges, mints, ships, lighters, postal services, newspapers and other publications, breweries, stores, shops, churches, chapels, public and private buildings, residences, places of amusement, recreation or instruction, or any other works."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 19th January, 1949; c. 385–6.]
Surely it cannot seriously be suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that he is seeking power for the Corporation to acquire a company whose activities are wholly or mainly a large number of the matters I read out. Our objection to his Amendment is, that he is taking the test of the matters authorised by the memorandum of association, which really is quite inapplicable. It may be that our test of Second Schedule activities is too narrow, but anyhow his memorandum test is obviously a ridiculous one, and I think he should undertake to look at this matter again and produce something more reasonable.

Mr. Maclay: The Minister said in his reply to the case that it was unthinkable—I paraphrase his words, but I think correctly—that the nationalisation of an industry should be confined to basic production. What I should like to know is, To whom was it unthinkable?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It was unthinkable to the Government, and I think it is unthinkable to anybody with any knowledge of the iron and steel industry.

Mr. Maclay: To the Government. Surely this Government went to the country in. 1945 with an Election programme for which a lot of people voted; but I wonder how many hon. Members sitting opposite at the moment had any


idea, when saying that they were going to take over the iron and steel industry, that they were going to take it over on the basis of such a memorandum of association as that just read out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). Did they, in the course of their election campaign, say they were going to nationalise all those activities?

Mr. Kirkwood: Everything.

Mr. Maclay: That was a rather extreme view heard north of the Clyde but not in all parts of the country. However, I am being led astray. The point is that the Minister has been forced into this position, from which we are trying to rescue him by a series of reasonable Amendments, because he has found it impracticable to do what was set out in "Let Us Face the Future"—nationalise the appropriate sections of the basic production of iron and steel. The Government have gone a great deal too far, and should be properly restricted by these Amendments.
Let me add one strong argument which, I hope, will appeal now to the Minister more than it did in Committee. He gave definite assurances as to what his intentions as Minister were. We welcomed them. But there is this terrific danger, that the present Minister may not necessarily remain Minister. We may find that someone on this side of the House may be the Minister at some time, and he may be carried away by enthusiasm for all this. What really is the wicked danger of this interference with all sorts of subsidiary activities is, that it increases the already great uncertainty that exists in the mind of every businessman who has to consider long term investment and production. We have enough uncertainties to face in the world, goodness knows, without adding the possibility of intervention by the Government, whatever the actual machinery may be, in any one of all these possible activities. I am certain the Minister has not and could not have the faintest idea of what is covered by all the articles of association of all those companies that may come into the Government's possession.
9.0 p.m.
Every one of the industrialists who may be contemplating expansion is suffering

from uncertainty. When one mentions the word "industrialists," I would point out that of 270,000 producing units in this country, 200,000 employ 10 men or fewer. It is those small units which we count on for the future strength and prosperity of this country, and they will grow and expand if there is a reasonable certainty of their doing so. One of the gravest deterrents to normal persons contemplating expansion is the knowledge that it is possible under this Bill for the Government suddenly to appear as a major competitor in their field. The Amendments we are discussing would remove that danger without in any way harming the basic purpose of the Bill.

Sir Ian Fraser: I was not a Member of the Committee, and I thought that the purpose of the Bill was to nationalise iron and steel and such other enterprises as are inevitably linked with the existing iron and steel companies. I think that is what the country thought, what the City thought, and what business people thought. I rise only to ask for certainty on this matter. My hon. Friends affirm that under this Clause, the Government, or any future Government, in fact, have the power to take over and add to their already large monopoly any one of the firms undertaking any of the 15, 20 or 30 activities which the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) read out. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? If that is true, it will be a surprise surely to everyone, not only in this House but in business circles throughout the country. It is then no longer an Iron and Steel Bill, but a Bill to give power to nationalise almost everything.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will answer the hon. Gentleman straight away. This Bill does not give powers of acquisition to the Corporation to take over any company whatsoever, except those specified in the Third Schedule.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Take over compulsorily.

Mr. Strauss: To take over compulsorily. What the hon. Member for Lonsdale asked is whether companies could be bought out by the Corporation and various industries nationalised, and so on. The answer is "No." What the Bill does is to give the Corporation powers to acquire, and, in fact, they do acquire,


certain companies which are specified, and they are also able by agreement to purchase certain companies whose work is similar or analogous to the work which they are already doing. I would add that if they went mad and started to buy a company or started a new company, which was engaged in operations which were entirely remote from the basic purpose of the Corporation, the Minister would, of course, immediately tell them to stop.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Where is the power to stop them?

Mr. Strauss: It is set out in Clause 4, and if the Minister did not do it, I am sure that Parliament would. There is complete Parliamentary control to prevent the Corporation undertaking activities remote from their own purpose.

Sir I. Fraser: I am obliged to the right hon Gentleman for trying to set my mind at rest, but he has not entirely done so. Power is given to this Government Corporation to buy almost anything—to buy breweries, for example. I am not interested in breweries, and I do not speak from that point of view. That may not be the Government's policy, but why should this House permit them to do something so far removed from the main purpose of the Bill? It is bad enough to have iron and steel nationalised, but if they are going to deal in breweries, it is no answer to say that they are not taking compulsory powers. In the wide field of metal, for example, and general manufacturing in this country, they can wait the right time until the market is low, and even starve the companies of metal so that prices come down, and, when they are in the worst possible position, all the resources of the Government are available to buy people up. The Minister mentioned analogous or similar undertakings; he might have said "competitive." No doubt it is intended to buy up from time to time any fabricating, manufacturing, or other industry which competes with any part of the monopoly, but I think it ought to be made clear how very with this Bill is going, because it is not what was contemplated by the country, the City or this House.

Mr. Harrison: I am sure that no person living in a steel-producing district was under any misapprehension about the

extent of the ancillary undertakings attached to the iron and steel industry. We in the steel producing districts understood the ramifications of the interests of some of the great steel firms of this country. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Wirral, who read out a long list of possible commercial industrial activities of a company, would claim that that company was engaged in all those activities. In order to cover a possible automatic or natural economic development of its activities an ordinary private corporation includes in its articles of association a wide variety of things, and I am persuaded that the Minister intends that the Iron and Steel Corporation should have similar facilities for possible developments. I am convinced that people in the steel-producing districts understand what the ramifications of the steel industry were and what they
be under this Bill.

Mr. Peake: I do feel that we should have a little more explanation of these new subsections, and the reasons for rejecting our Amendment, from the Solicitor-General, who has more training and experience in the interpretation of words in Bills than, with all respect to him, has the Minister of Supply. The most important Clause of this Bill is this Clause 2, which defines the general powers of the Corporation, and it is a bit thick that at the Report stage, no less than six months after the Bill has been first published and put before the country, we should be faced with a complete redraft of the Clause. It is a very great handicap to us to have to discuss this most important Clause under the restrictions necessarily imposed upon us at the Report stage. Had we had these new subsections to deal with in Committee I have no doubt that we should have hammered them out into something very much better than they are. We are greatly handicapped in now having to deal with the most important Clause in this Bill upon the Report stage, when we can make only one speech on a particular Amendment.
It seems to me that the Minister has completely altered the whole set up of the Corporation. As I read the Clause now the Corporation become in the main a holding company, and to some extent a company-promoting company. That is a complete change from the Clause we


originally had in the Bill. The new subsection (1, a), which we are seeking to amend, seems to cut clean across Clause 36, the investment Clause, which gives the Iron and Steel Corporation power to invest
Any sums in the hands of the Corporation which are not immediately required for the purposes of their business…in such manner as the Corporation think proper:
Provided that the Corporation shall not have power under this section to invest money in the securities of any company so as to make that company a subsidiary of the Corporation or so as to enable the Corporation to exercise an effective influence on the policy of the company.
That is to say, the Corporation are prohibited by Clause 36 from investing their funds in a way so as to give them control or a controlling influence in any industrial undertaking. Now, when we come to read the new subsection (1, a), we see that the Corporation:
shall have power—
(a) to hold such interests in companies as vest in them under Part II of this Act"—
that is to say, they can hold the shares of the 106 companies set out in the Third Schedule, and they have power, under the Minister's most recent proposal,
to acquire by agreement"—
that is, to buy on the Stock Exchange, because by buying on the Stock Exchange shares are being acquired by agreement—
and to hold interests in any company whose activities …consist wholly or mainly of activities which any publicly-owned company…is immediately before the acquisition—
that is to say, before the acquisition of the shares by the Corporation—
authorised by its memorandum of association…to carry on.
That is to say, they may acquire by agreement any shares in any company whose main object is to carry on a business authorised by the memorandum of association of any of the 106 companies in the Schedule. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, memoranda of association of these 106 companies include power to carry on any business under the sun. The result of this paragraph is completely to abolish the safeguards imposed by the investment Clause—Clause 36—and to enable the Iron and Steel Corporation, by agreement, to acquire either the whole or a controlling interest in any company carrying on any activity of any sort or kind.
That is a proper legal interpretation, I believe, of the words. What we on this side are seeking to do is to limit the powers of acquisition of shares and the interests in companies given by this paragraph to acquiring the shares and interests in companies whose activities are the activities described in the Second Schedule. That would seem to us to be a reasonable limitation to put upon them. They would acquire the shares of all the 106 companies, but we say that over and beyond that, if they want to acquire shares in other concerns and by agreement, it should be concerns carrying on wholly or mainly activities described in the Second Schedule. It seems a fairly simple and narrow point, and I invite the Solicitor-General to explain to the House how this new power of investment, which is complete, broad and general and enables the Corporation to buy up the whole of the shares in any industrial undertaking in the country, can possibly be reconciled with the limitations upon investment put upon the Iron and Steel Corporation by Clause 36. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to explain the meaning of the Clause.

9.15 p.m.

Sir I. Fraser: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the Government to introduce an Amendment of such a dimension as this, which amounts almost to an addition of a new subject to the Measure? The name of this Bill, when it becomes law, will be the Iron and Steel Act. That being so, is it in Order to take powers, in such a Measure, to deal with breweries and chapels and also every conceivable kind of industry, as entirely remote from iron and steel as anything could be? I ask the question seriously, because this will cause great anxiety throughout the country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker has no doubt considered that point and, as he is entitled to do, has selected this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I would like to deal with a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and also the point which touches on the legal aspect of the Bill arising out of the Amendment supported by the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). With regard to investment, the Amendment we


are proposing specifically preserves powers of investment conferred under Clause 36. The right hon. Gentleman will have observed that paragraph (ii) of the proviso reads:
nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the powers of investment conferred on the Corporation by Part IV of this Act.
The reason for that is that Clause 36 deals with something quite different, the disposal of money not immediately required for the Corporation's operations. The relevant words in Clause 36 are:
Any sums in the hands of the Corporation which are not immediately required for the purposes of their business may be invested"—
and then there is the proviso which limits investment.
The Clause does not deal with application of the Corporation's assets as part of the operations of their undertaking. It is an investment Clause, which relates only to the power to invest money not immediately required by the Corporation for carrying on their undertaking. Clause 36 provides that surplus money can be invested in a certain way subject to the limitations in the proviso. That investment should be revenue-producing investment, and that is all. It is different from application of the assets as contemplated in the Amendment. Broadly speaking, the conception of the Corporation is that it is a holding company, in the main. It has always been thought desirable and necessary that the Corporation should be able to carry on certain operations.
In Committee, my right hon Friend pointed out that among other operations it might be desired that the Corporation should be able to carry on were the specific ones we have referred to in subsection (2) of the Amendment, namely, research and the provision of common services for the public companies. But that is not exhaustive. For instance, as a result of research carried on directly by the Corporation a new process may be discovered which it might be thought convenient and commercially desirable that the Corporation themselves should, in the first place, develop. That is why we incorporate subsection (3) in our Amendment. We want to preserve for the Corporation, which is, admittedly, in general a holding Corporation, certain powers which can be used on specific

occasions when it is desirable in the general interests of the industry.
The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset asked why, if that was desired, the Amendment could not be accepted. He called attention to the fact that the Government Amendment includes the words "wholly or mainly." The answer to that is that it may constantly arise—I do not say it will always arise but it may be frequent—that there is some outside company which, for example, is desirous of disposing of its undertaking. It may be that it wants to wind up its affairs. Anything of that sort might happen, and it may be highly desirable that the Corporation should be in the position to acquire the undertaking of the company, for it may be an undertaking which is carried on in conjunction with the basic operations of the industry.
If the first Opposition Amendment were adopted, the Corporation would not be competent to acquire a concern of that sort. If the concern were something which could be usefully allied to the basic operations of the industry—it might only be a small concern and only one undertaking—it would be desirable for the Corporation to acquire it if the concern were going into liquidation. If the Amendment were adopted, it could not be said of that concern that it was wholly or mainly part of the operations as set out in the Second Schedule. The Corporation then would not have power to acquire it. It is for that reason that, when we are dealing with the power to acquire—and let me, for the sake of emphasis, repeat that this only deals with the power to acquire by agreement—we say that the companies that can be acquired by agreement are companies whose operations are within the general ambit of the operations authorised by the memoranda of the Third Schedule companies. That is the reason we are doing it.

Sir I Fraser: Could the Solicitor-General answer a specific question? Can this Corporation buy a newspaper?

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid I have not studied the memoranda of all the Third Schedule companies, but the answer is not that it can or it cannot, but that it may be that some of the memoranda of the Third Schedule companies do contain such a power. If the Corporation sought to conduct such an


undertaking, the Minister without any doubt would exercise the powers which he has under Clause 4 (4, a) to direct the Corporation to discontinue or restrict any of their activities or dispose of any of those activities. if he did that, he could, of course, be questioned in this House with regard to the exercise of the powers that are given to him by that Clause. The proviso does not in any way detract from that. He does not give such a direction under this subsection unless he is satisfied that it can be given effect to without prejudice to the proper discharge of the duties of the Corporation under this Bill. The duties of the Corporation are set out in the first Amendment on the Order Paper. I should have thought that the carrying on of a newspaper would obviously be something on which the Minister could easily give such a direction.

Sir I. Fraser: He could give it?

The Solicitor-General: He could give a direction by exercising the discretion that he possesses under Clause 4 and he would be subject to Questions in this House. It is for that reason we would recommend the House to say that these two Amendments should not be accepted. If I may, in passing, say a word with regard to the other two Amendments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) in his opening speech, but which have not yet been dealt with, I would remind the House that he said it was drafting to leave out the word "aforesaid."

Mr. H. Macmillan: I said that I would be quite glad to consider them separately, but for convenience and because of the tremendous pressure under which we are working the two first were the vital ones dealing with existing companies and the formation of new companies. I further argued that these other two would follow fairly naturally if the Government accepted the first two. Therefore, I thought it would save time if we did not deal with them in great detail, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman prefers it, we will take them at greater length, although we have only got a fantastically short time to discuss this Clause and I would rather take the two more important in some detail. The other two would, if they are not drafting, be consequential or of subsidiary importance.

The Solicitor-General: If that is the desire of the House, then I was only going to say, with regard to those two Amendments, something which I can say in one sentence. It is that their drafting limits the powers which can be contained in the memoranda of companies which may be acquired, to the powers which are found in the memoranda of Third Schedule companies at the time when they are taken over; that is to say, not in any expanded form. All it amounts to is that these Amendments are not entirely of a drafting character. If the two Amendments are not accepted it stands, as a matter of logical necessity, that these two should not be accepted either.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will see the purpose of the proposed new Clause and will see the way in which it is drafted. It is drafted in such a way as to make clear at any rate what it is that the Corporation desires to be able to do. That is set out in subsection (2,a and b), and subsection (3). That change in the framework of the original Clause is designed to meet the argument which was propounded in Committee that it gave too great a power to the Corporation itself and that there was no limit, in the Clause as it originally stood, to the processes which the Corporation itself, as distinct from the publicly-owned companies, might carry on.

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman always treats us so charmingly that one feels disinclined to join issue with him again. In exercising the right to reply, as I think I am entitled to do, I say that he has told us quite truthfully the purpose which the Minister and the Government had in mind in drafting the proposed new Clause. He has not, however, answered in any shape or form the point that since, in the ordinary way of business, some of these companies have their memoranda of association drawn so widely, and since it is now becoming the practice of many private companies to draw these very wide articles of association, there is given to the Government, to the Corporation and to the Minister, should they so desire, the power to enter by agreement, to acquire by contract on the Stock Exchange, or to start, new companies of a type wholly dissimilar to what any ordinary person


thought was associated with the iron and steel industry.
If it may be said that our Amendment narrows the position too much, I think it may also be said that the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman widens it too much. There may be some course still to be found, some new form of words, which expresses what I think is the spirit of the Government's intention how this should work. I am convinced that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be shocked if some future Minister used this legal power in the way in which I think it can be used. Perhaps he can find new words which go some way between, if he thinks ours are too wide. I am all the 'more confident in this matter because only 10 days ago there appeared on the Order Paper a complete redraft of Clauses 1 and 2, which are the vital Clauses of the Bill. The Bill was introduced six months ago, and we have spent

weeks and weeks upon it in Committee. Yet, 10 days ago—days which have included certain ecclesiastical and other feasts—we found a completely new draft presented of the vital Clauses of the Bill.

Without being accused of not carrying out our proper duties, I think we are entitled to say that we still think that the Government can find some words, some definition, by general agreement, which would be not quite so limiting as our Amendment and certainly not quite so wide as the proposed new Clause, as amended, would be, if it were carried. Since we have so much other business to do, I will not pursue this any more except to ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment to the Amendment which we have moved.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 323; Noes, 164.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Collins, V J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Albu, A. H.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cook, T. F.
Gibbins, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cooper, G.
Gibson, C. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Gilzean, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, J E. (Consett)


Attewell, H. C.
Crawley, A.
Gooch, E. G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Crossman, R. H. S.
Goodrich, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Cullen, Mrs.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, P.
Grey, C. F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grierson, E.


Baird, J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Balfour, A.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Barton, C.
Deer, G.
Gunter, R. J.


Battley, J. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Guy, W. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Diamond, J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Benson, G.
Dobbie, W.
Hale, Leslie


Beswick, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Bing, G. H. C
Donovan, T.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Binns, J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Blenkinsop, A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hardman, D. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hardy, E. A.


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Harrison, J.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Edelman, M.
Haworth, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Bramali, E. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brook,. D. (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hicks, G.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Hobson, C. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Holman, P.


Burden, T. W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Burke, W. A.
Ewart, R.
Horabin, T. L.


Callaghan, James
Fairhurst, F.
Houghton, A. L. N. D


Carmichael, James
Farthing, W. J.
Hoy, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hubbard, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Cobb, F. A.
Follick, M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Cocks, F. S.
Foot, M. M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Coldrick, W.
Forman, J. C.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Collick, P.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Collindridge, F.
Freeman, J (Watford)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)




Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham E.)
Soskice, At. Hon. Sir Frank


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Janner, B.
Moyle, A.
Steele, T.


Jay, D. P. T.
Murray, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Jager, G. (Winchester)
Nally, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Jenkins, R. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Stubbs, A. E.


John, W.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Swingler, S.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Sylvester, G. O


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Symonds, A. L.


Jones, Jack (Balton)
Oldfield, W. H
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Keenan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Kenyon, C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


King, E. M
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Parker, J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


kinley, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kirby, B. V.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Timmons, J.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Titterington, M [...].


Lang, G.
Pearson, A.
Tolley, L.


Lavers, S.
Peart, T. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Perrins, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Leonard, W.
Popplewall, E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Leslie, J. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Vernon, Maj. W F


Lever, N. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Viant, S. P.


Levy, B. W.
Price, M. Philips
Walker, G. H.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Proctor, W. T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Pryde, D. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Watkins, T. E


Lindgren, G. S.
Randall, H. E
Watson, W M


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ranger, J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Logan, D. G.
Rankin, J.
Weitzman, D.


Longden, F.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lyne, A. W.
Reeves, J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


McAdam, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
West, D. G.


McAllister, G.
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


McEntee, V. La T.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E..)


McGhee, H. G
Robens, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


McGovern, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caennarvonshire)
Wigg, George


Mack, J. D.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


McLeavy, F.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rayle, C.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sargood, R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Scollan, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Scott Elliot, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shackleton,. E. A. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sharp, Granville
Willis, E.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Shurmer, P.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wise, Major F. J.


Medland, H. M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J.
Woods, G. S.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Mikardo, Ian
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mitchison, G. R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Monslow, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Zilliacus, K.


Moody, A. S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)



Morley, R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Solley, L. J.
Mr. Snow and


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Butcher, H. W.
Duthie, W. S.


Astor, Hon. M.
Channon, H.
Eccles, D. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Errol, F. J.


Barlow, Sir J.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L


Baxter, A. B.
Cole, T. L
Fletcher, W. (Bury)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fox, Sir G.


Beechman, N. A.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)


Bennett, Sir, P.
Corbett, Lieut.-Cal. U. (Ludlow)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Birch, Nigel
Crookshank, Capt. At. Hon. H F C.
Fyfe, At. Hon. Sir D. P. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Croathwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gage, C.


Bowen, R.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Bower, N.
De la Bere, R.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gammas, L. D.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Donner, P. W
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cal. W.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Drayson, G. B
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drewe, C.
Granville, E. (Eye)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Gridley, Sir A.







Grimston, R V.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ropner, Col. L.


Harden, J. R. E.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Scott, Lord W.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
McFarlane, C. S.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Houghton, S. G.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. S[...]
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Snadden, W. M.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marples, A. E.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Hollis, M. C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Maude, J. C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hope, Lord J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen(
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hurd, A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Touche, C. C.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Jennings, R.
Nicholson, G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nield, B. (Chaster)
Vane, W. M. F.


Kendall, W. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wadsworth, G.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Odey, G. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Walker-Smith, D.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Langford-Holt, J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pickthorn, K.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Linstead, H. N.
Raikes, H. V.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsay, Maj. S.
York, C.


Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)



Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyttelton, RI. Hon. O.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Commander Agnew and


McCallum, Maj. D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Studholme.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The next Amendment was discussed with the one taken previously, and therefore, in order to make the best possible time under the terrible conditions in which we are compelled to work, I will not press for a Division upon it, but will proceed to devote the remainder of our time to the next Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I call on the right hon. Gentleman to move the Amendment to line 18.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 18, to leave out from "not," to "exercise."
The phrasing here is—
Provided that—
(i) the Corporation shall not, without the consent in writing of the Minister, exercise their powers under this subsection so as to bring any company into public ownership or form a publicly-owned company, if the consequence thereof would be to increase the sum of the activities which the publicly-owned companies are authorised as aforesaid to carry on;
On the last two Amendments, we tried to arrive at a position by which the power of the Corporation should be limited so that it should not be able to carry on all the activities which are authorised, though

not in fact carried on at the moment, by the memoranda of association of all the companies concerned, and that they should not start companies within that ambit. That was rejected, and the Government has therefore now armed the Corporation with this immense range of powers, which have been referred to by my hon. Friends in detail. Not content with that, they want to go further. They want, not merely to have the right to operate within this immense range, but they want, if they can get the consent in writing of the Minister, to plunge into a still more advanced range and to bring companies into public ownership so as to increase the activities which the publicly-owned companies are allowed to carry on, or which they are allowed to carry on if they get the consent of the Minister. I do not see why the consent of the Minister should be the method by which they should be authorised to embark into yet another field.
9.45 p.m.
I should have thought that the proper procedure there would have been by way of an amending Act of Parliament such as we recently had in the case of the Coal Board's activities, where Parliament was asked to approve of any fresh increase in the range of activity beyond


what was originally contemplated. But under this proviso, if they can find a Minister suitably weak or pliant—and from my experience that should not be difficult—they can embark upon a whole range of activities even beyond those laid down in this tremendous range which we have already been discussing. By a stroke of the Minister's pen they can acquire these new rights.
I do not see why this proviso is drawn in this way. I should have thought it much better that they should not, whether with or without the consent of the Minister, do what is here contemplated, but that they should do what is still not an unreasonable suggestion even in what remains of a democratic society—go to Parliament from which they drew their original authority and ask for an extension of that authority. If that necessity should arise, it would not be a very difficult thing to do it in that way. I very much hope that the House, which has not shown by its vote its acceptance of what seemed to us a very reasonable limitation, will at least agree that, in these cases, the consent of the Minister should not in itself allow this further extension, but that some other procedure, at least by both Houses of Parliament or some democratic Parliamentary procedure, should take the place of the purely bureaucratic and autocratic character of the Minister and the Corporation acting together.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I believe that on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his Amendment is really not acceptable. It may well be that the Corporation may wish to acquire by agreement, and quite properly, a certain company which is carrying out an essential or an important part of the work of the Corporation. But it may be that the memorandum of association of that company gives it powers to undertake activities not included in the memorandum of association of any other company owned by the Corporation. We want to provide—and we do provide—in this Clause that the Corporation should not, by the acquisition of any new company, get additional powers for operation by any of the companies which it owns beyond those which it already possesses.
Therefore, if it wants to acquire—maybe it should acquire—a certain com-

pany which is empowered by its articles of association to carry on certain activities beyond those in the memorandum of association of any other company owned by the Corporation, it would be prohibited from doing so, except, as we suggest here, by the consent of the Minister. We seek to limit the activities of the companies which are to be acquired, but we say that in the case of any new company which the Corporation does acquire, and which has activities beyond those already possessed by the other companies, that company can be acquired if the Minister consents. If we do not have that provision in the Bill, then the Corporation might well be prevented from acquiring a company which it ought to possess and which everybody might say it should possess.
Moreover, there is another situation which may well arise. The Corporation might wish to form a company for the purpose of treating a certain by-product. It may be that an entirely new form of by-product is discovered, and that it would be wholly desirable that a new company should be formed for the purpose of treating it. Perhaps no company which it possesses at the moment has the powers of treating that by-product and it is, therefore, just common sense that the Corporation should be in a position to form a new company with new powers which no other company in its control possesses. We limit that power here, however, so that the consent of the Minister has to be given in every case. I suggest that what we are doing is entirely reasonable. We are limiting the powers and the activities of the companies possessed by the Corporation. We say that these can be increased by the purchase of a new company or the formation of a new company where the Minister gives consent. Obviously there will be cases where that consent should be given and where it is highly desirable from every point of view that the Corporation, through the company, should be able to undertake new activities which it had not previously been empowered to undertake.

Mr. Erroll: I think the Minister has made out a very theoretical case. We have previously discussed articles of association and demonstrated from both sides of the House how wide they may be drawn. I think it is inconceivable that a company, merely by producing a new


by-product, would find that it was unable to market that product because its articles of association did not permit it. I think the Minister's explanation is disingenuous in the extreme, and I suspect some ulterior motive behind this—and so do many Socialists. The reply which the Minister has put forward is quite inadequate to meet the discussion which has been initiated.

Mr. Peake: I think the Minister's explanation and his reasons for resisting this Amendment show, first of all, the absurdity of the proviso in the Clause and, secondly, the appalling handicap under which we are suffering through having to deal with the most important Clause in the Bill—the Clause which gives general powers to the Corporation—under the limitations imposed on the Report stage. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the proviso, and of the need for having the consent in writing of the Minister to the Corporation proceeding to purchase control of undertakings and thereby increasing the sum total of its powers, it was this: every time the Iron and Steel Corporation proposes to buy a controlling interest in any company or undertaking somebody in the Corporation and also somebody in the Ministry has first to read through all the memoranda of association of the 106 companies set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill, somebody has to read through all the memoranda of association of all the 160 subsidiaries of the 106 companies specified in the Third Schedule to the Bill, and, having read those 266 memoranda of association from beginning to end, they have then to compare them with the memorandum of association of the company whose shares it is proposed to acquire to see whether any of the powers in the new memorandum exceeds the whole of the powers in the 266 sets of memoranda of what are called the publicly-owned companies. If it so happens that one of the powers contained in the memorandum of association of the company which is to be acquired does not coincide with the powers contained in the other 266 memoranda of association, then apparently the Corporation have to get the consent in writing of the Minister. That seems to me quite fantastic and quite absurd and a complete waste of time of the officials of the Corporation

and a waste of time of the officials in the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This proviso, and subsection (3), which we would seek to leave out, although I fear we shall not have time to move to do so, are by far the most dangerous parts of the Minister's Amendment. We spent time on subsection (1, b), by which the Corporation is given power to form a company. It is restricted there, as we have been saying, to activities which any publicly-owned company, immediately before the formation of the new company, was authorised to carry on. This proviso goes right beyond that. It does not concern itself with the activities of the memoranda of association. It merely gives the Minister full power to override the provision which we have been debating, and allows the Corporation to form a company for any purpose whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that there may be some new process in the iron and steel industry which would require the formation of a company. I cannot conceive of any new process in so short a space of time as would necessitate the Minister's stepping in and giving his approval without the authorisation of Parliament. We have had several hundred years' experience now of iron and steel production, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point to one single thing in the last 10 years which has been developed almost overnight, and which, if the industry had then been nationalised, would have required the Corporation's intervention, and the giving of the Minister's approval. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he can bring in an amending Bill to give authorisation for these activities.
However, it is not on that sole point that we reject this proviso. It is because the powers taken are much wider than the examples the Minister repeatedly gives. He cites examples which should be interpreted reasonably by reasonable men. If we really trusted him and his purpose, and his party behind him, no doubt we should agree, but it is because the powers embrace far wider connections than anything the Minister ever speaks of when adducing examples that we reject the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: I wish to make only one remark so far as this is concerned, and it is that I am quite convinced by


what the Minister said in his last two speeches, that he has no wish whatever to reduce the powers of purchase under this scheme. It is quite clear that, (by his refusal to accept our Amendment to his Amendment—and other Amendments of ours, but this Amendment in particular—he is taking to this Corporation powers which are quite unlimited, and powers which will enable him to take out anything even as ridiculous as the Government's groundnut scheme.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 32, to leave out subsection (3).
As we wish to make as rapid progress as possible within our time, I pass two other of our Amendments in order to concentrate on the most important of our Amendments to the Government's proposed Amendment. As has been observed from this side of the House, this new Amendment of the Government's is a triumph of Government drafting after weeks of thought. It gives with one hand and takes back with the other hand. It says, "You may not do this, but then you may in certain circumstances; and then you may do so if there is consent in writing, but you may not do it without consent in writing." So at the end it is rather difficult to see if

this Government Amendment is to limit the powers of the Corporation or to increase them. It limits them at one moment it increases them at another. This subsection (3), as is the view of my hon. Friends, really invalidates the whole purpose of the Government's Amendment. It is absolutely an "Alice in Wonderland" Amendment, this Government Amendment as it is drawn.
I'll be judge, I'll be jury,'

Said cunning old Fury.
'I'll try all the cause and condemn you to death.'

The Government's Amendment takes powers away and gives them back again, and then takes them away again, and this subsection invalidates and makes useless the view put forward in the Government's Amendment. The first Clause of the Bill has been completely redrawn; the second Clause of the Bill is now completely redrawn. Therefore, I move the Amendment to leave out subsection (3).

It being Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 329; Noes, 162.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Daines, P.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Albu, A. H.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bramall, E. A.
Davies, Haydn, (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Alpass, J. H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Deer, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attewell, H. C.
Burden, T. W.
Diamond, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Burke, W. A.
Dobbie, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Callaghan, James
Dodds, N. N.


Ayles, W. H.
Carmichael, James
Donovan, T


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bacon, Miss A.
Chetwynd. G. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Baird, J.
Cobb, F. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Balfour, A.
Cocks, F. S.
Dye, S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Coldrick, W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C


Barstow, P. G.
Collick, P.
Edelman, M.


Barton, C.
Callindridge, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Battley, J. R.
Collins, V. J
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Bechervaise, A. E
Colman, Miss G. M.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Benson, G.
Comyns, Dr. L
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Beswick, F.
Cook, T. F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Bevin, Rt. Hon E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bing, G. H. C
Cove, W. G.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Binns, J.
Crawley, A.
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)


Blenkinsop, A
Crossman, R. H. S
Ewart, R.


Blylon, W. R.
Cullen, Mrs.
Fairhurst., F.


Boardman, H.
Daggar, G.
Farthing, W. J.




Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sargood, R.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Scollan, T.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Scott Elliot, W.


Follick, M.
Logan, D. G
Segal, Dr. S.


Foot, M. M.
Longden, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Forman, J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Sharp, Granville


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
McAllister, G.
Shurmer, P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McEntee, V. La T
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McGovern, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Gibbins, J.
Mack, J. D.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibson, C. W
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffinglon-Lodge, T. C.


Gilzean, A.
MaLeavy, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consent)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gooch, E. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Goodrich, H. E
Mainwaring, W. H
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Solley, L. J.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sorensen, R. W.


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grierson, E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Steele, T.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Stokes, R. R.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mayhew, C. P.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gunter, R. J.
Medland, H. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Gay W. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Stubbs, A. E.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Swingler, S.


Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Sylvester, G O.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Symonds, A. L.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Monslow, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hardman, D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hardy, E. A.
Morley, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Harrison, J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Haworth, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Mort, D. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.
Titterington, M F.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Nally, W.
Tolley, L.


Hicks, G.
Naylor, T. E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Hobson, C. R
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holman, P.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Ungood-Thomas, L.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Horabin, T. L.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)
Viant, S. P.


Houghton, A. L N. D
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Walker, G. H.


Hoy, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamatow, E.)


Hubbard, T.
Oliver, G. H
Warbey, W. N.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Watson, W. M.


Hughes, H. D. (W lverh'pton, W)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Webb, N. (Bradford, C.)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Parker, J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham; N.)
Parkin, B. T.
West, D.G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Jay, D. P. T.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pane, as S.E.)
Peart, T. F.
Wigg, George


Jenkins, R. H.
Perrins, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


John, W.
Popplewell, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willey O. G. (Cleveland>


Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Price, M. Philips
Williams D. J. (Neath)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


King, E. M.
Randall, H. E.
Willis, E.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Ranger, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Kinley. J.
Rankin, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Kirby, B. V.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hen. A.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Reeves, J.
Woods, G. S.


Lang, G.
Raid, T. (Swindon)
Yates, V. F.


Lavers, S.
Rhodes, H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Leonard, W.
Rebens, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)



Lever, N. H.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Levy, B. W.
Regers, G. H. R.
Mr. Snow and


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. George Wallace.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Royle, C.








NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Odey, G. W.


Barlow, Sir J.
Houghton, S. G.
O'Neill, At. Hon. Sir H


Baxter, A. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bowen, R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, At. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hulbert,Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col, W
Hurd, A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, P. G. (Eocleall)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Butcher, H. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'e)
Jennings, R.
Ropner, Col. L.


Channon, H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Shepherd, S. (Newark)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cole, T. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Co[...]ant, Maj. R. J. E.
Langford Holt, J.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Snadden, W. M.


Corbett., Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C.
Lennox-Boyd A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthrwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bere, R.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Low, A R. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorneyeroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thornton-Kemaley, C. N.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Toucha, G. C.


Duthie, W. S.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
McFarlane, C. S.
Twesdamuir, Lady


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Errol, F. J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wadsworth, G.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Macpherson,. N. (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonedale)
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald(Tonbridgs)


Gage, C.
Maude. J. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)
Mellor, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Malson,. A. H. E.
York, C.


Gates, Mai. E. E.
Harrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (p'ke)
Morrison, Rt. Kn. W. S. (Cirencester)



Gomme Duncart, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Mr. Studholme and




Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 28, leave out from "activities," to "or," in line 29.

In line 29, leave out from second "the," to end of line 34, and insert:

preceding provisions of this section."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Clause 3.—(GENERAL DUTY OF THE CORPORATION.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 1, leave out Clause 3.—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Snow.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

TROPICAL DISEASES HOSPITAL, LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The question I wish to raise on the Adjournment is one of whose importance no one who has had any connection with our Colonial territories can fail to be aware. The gravity of the medical problems that arise in them is a story so familiar as to be almost platitudinous. The diseases that we meet there are partly diseases that are familiar in this country, such as tuberculosis, but are met with on a scale that we do not see in these islands. There are other diseases more serious still that are peculiar to warmer climates, such as leprosy and malaria. We in this country with our great imperial responsibilities are bound therefore to take a deep interest in the treatment and teaching of tropical diseases.
The question I want to raise tonight is the provision that is to be made in this country in these post-war years for such treatment, teaching and research. Up to the outbreak of the First World War this country held a leading position in the treatment and teaching of these diseases. The names of Sir Patrick Manson and Sir Ronald Ross, who between them diagnosed the cause of malaria and the method of its transmission, are famous throughout the world. The story which I am outlining tonight really begins in 1898, for it was then that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was Colonial Secretary, Sir Patrick Manson and Sir Percival Nairne, Chairman of the Seamen's Hospital Society, founded the London School of Tropical. Medicine. It was located at the Albert Dock Hospital, because it was among the merchant seamen of all races who came to London that the clinical material which was essential for teaching, treatment and research in this subject was to he found. It was the essence of Manson's idea that teaching, treatment and research should be carried on by one organisation in one group of buildings, and it is that ideal which I should like to see perpetuated if possible.
At the outbreak of the First World War the London School of Tropical

Medicine was closed. When that war ended the Hospital for Tropical Diseases was established in Gordon Street, Bloomsbury, and the School was reopened there in 1920. In 1924, the original School was merged in the new London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This meant a separation of teaching from the treatment of disease which I think was unfortunate but, nevertheless, this country did maintain a very high place in the teaching and treatment of tropical diseases until the outbreak of the Second World War. The building in Gordon Street then had to be closed because it was unsuitable for use as a hospital under threat of air attack, and a litle later it was made untenable by a land mine which fell behind it. It then became necessary to consider what provision should be made following the war for this important subject, and in April, 1941, Lord Moyne, who was then Colonial Secretary, with his usual farsighted vision, appointed an inter-Departmental Committee to go into the question.
I need not go through all the deliberations that took place during the war. Let me mention only that in February, 1945, the Royal Society entered this field as well, and convened a conference the importance of which was so recognised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that he attended in person, although he was Prime Minister and the war was at its sternest. The war came to an end in due course and a temporary hospital for the treatment of tropical diseases was reopened in Devonshire Street. Very good work has been done there, although accommodation has been very limited. The staff have rendered devoted service, but no one would claim that this temporary hospital is an adequate centre for the treatment of these diseases and for the other activities that ought to be associated with treatment. My own view, as one who has thought much about this matter during recent years, is that we should set up in London a really comprehensive hospital for tropical diseases, a centre which should have a legal entityas a post-graduate teaching hospital, with its own board of governors, and that it should be erected within the curtilage of the University of London in order to be in immediate proximity to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.


It would be an ambitious scheme and would probably cost £1 million, but my own view was that nothing short of such a scheme would really be worthy of the imperial responsibilities of this country and the gravity of the problems to be treated.
About that time under the National Health Service Act the responsibility for these matters passed from the Colonial Office to the Ministry of Health. I confess that I felt some anxiety on this account, for on the surface it would not be expected that the Minister of Health would pay so much attention to the problems of, say, Kenya as he would to those of, say, Ebbw Vale. I felt that my disquiet was justified when I put a question to the Minister of Health about what plans he had in mind for the creation of a tropical diseases hospital in London and received the following reply:
It is proposed to develop a tropical diseases centre as a unit of the University College Hospital group. The Colonial Secretary and I are most anxious to ensure that development shall be worthy of the object in view, and shall take place as rapidly as building and other difficulties permit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 87.]
It was not a forthcoming reply and did not seem to me to fulfil what I should like to have seen, and what the very distinguished body of men who had been associated with me desired. It seemed to us that such a worthy tropical diseases hospital should comprise in-patient accommodation of 150 beds; an adequate out-patient department of the polyclinic type both for the diagnosis of disease and for the determination of the fitness of persons seeking to work in the tropics; laboratories for routine parasitological, bacteriological, serological, haematological and pathological work; research laboratories for the Professor of Tropical Medicine, the Colonial Medical Research Service and the staff of the Colonial Office engaged on research into nutrition; a radiological department; full facilities for the instruction of post-graduate students; a hostel with accommodation for nurses; a hostel for selected medical and administrative students from overseas; and—a subject that would naturally appeal to me with my background—an inoculation department for vaccination against smallpox, and inoculations against yellow fever and other diseases. In these days of air travel a very large number of inoculations are, of course, given daily.
Having those ideas in mind I was rather disappointed with the reply I received on 10th February from the Minister of Health, but since that date I understand that the Minister of Health has, in fact, been very much more forthcoming and the plans that he has in mind are such as I could not quarrel with in the present circumstances.

Mr. Haydn Davies: The plans for that hospital group were made by the Governors long before the reply of 10th February so that the hon. Gentleman is really barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am not a governor of the hospital and I do not have the advantage of the hon. Member. I merely happened to be the chairman of a rather distinguished inter-departmental Committee which considered this subject for a long period. All I am asking now is what plans the Minister of Health has in mind. I understand that his plans are such that in the present stringency of building I could not complain about them, and all I am asking him to do is to make a statement about those plans. My own view remains the same that we ought, having regard to our imperial responsibilities, to have a worthy hospital in the area of the University of London in close association with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I realise that we cannot get the ideal at the present time, but I should be very grateful to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary what plans the Minister has in mind.

10.25 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I intervene only on one small point. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) has referred to the distinguished committee over which he presided some time ago. I would emphasise the words "some time ago," because I think the hon. Member is out of touch with the present very great difficulties in regard to staffing. The Hospital for Tropical Diseases is very efficient, but anything like the scheme which the hon. Gentleman has suggested is completely out of the question at the present time. I say that with all due deference to anything which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be saying. We just have not the personnel to do that kind of thing; nor is it necessary to do it. I do


not think it is necessary to have anything like 150 beds. It is necessary to have a teaching institution, but I propose to leave that part of the question to other hon. Members to deal with. As one who is particularly concerned arid interested in the subject of tropical medicine, I should like to say that the scheme outlined by the bon. Gentleman is impossible of realisation at the present time.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Haydn Davies: With the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), we should like to see this matter developed to the very best possible degree, but I think that the figures which he has given are completely exaggerated. They have no relation to the number of beds required or occupied. Tropical medicine should become a very important part of hospital life in London, and I can assure the hon. Member, and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will say very much the same thing, that we shall do everything we can to get this accomplished. I am also certain that some of the things which the hon. Member has proposed are the wrong way in which to achieve that end.

10.28 p.m.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: As a governor of University College Hospital of comparatively recent appointment, I must confess that my interest in tropical diseases and things tropical is also comparatively recent. One practical difficulty which we have been experiencing is the collection of tropical cases. Until recently, the places in the existing temporary hospital were nothing like filled, which was partly due to the fact that many medical officers and specialists in London had been in the Forces and had had experience of the treatment of tropical diseases, and were anxious to use that experience in the treatment of cases in non-tropical disease hospitals and general wards in London. Perhaps the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) is thinking on too big a scale, certainly with regard to the number of cases available, apart from anything else.
I can assure the hon. Member, on behalf of the Governors of University College Hospital, that it is our desire to see a really worthy tropical disease hospital and unit developed as part of

University College Hospital. The hospital has a very great research record. Perhaps it is in many ways the best research hospital in London. I feel that the study of tropical diseases will benefit greatly from the intimate association of the general medical school which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation in the inter-war years in University College.
With regard to the plans for hostels for Dominion post-graduate students, I am not certain whether it would be a good idea to segregate medical postgraduate students from other postgraduate students. A better plan might be to mix them, and to mix people from different faculties, allowing them to have something other than purely medical experience outside their working life. It will, in its new location, or what we hope will be its new location, in the old St. Pancras Hospital, be closer to the University of London or not much further away than it was in the old building. It will be a more suitable building than that in which it was accommodated in the inter-war years.

10.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the position as it is today on this very important issue of the proper provision of accommodation and facilities such as we all, I think, desire to see in London not only for the treatment of tropical diseases but for teaching in tropical medicine. We know the interest which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) has taken in this subject in the past. As he knows, I think, after the report had been submitted of the interdepartmental committee to which he referred, it was decided that instead of going forward on the line he had then suggested, which was rather out of keeping with the development of the National Health Service, which had later come into being, that it would preferable to develop not so much a completely isolated and separate hospital, but a separate unit which would be in the closest association with one of our large teaching hospitals.
Of course, following that decision, the Devonshire Street Hospital, which is the existing hospital for the treatment of tropical diseases, was associated with the


University College Hospital group, as it is, of course, today. It has become a unit within the teaching group of the University College Hospital. But it was realised that that was not a satisfactory permanent arrangement. I have been there myself, and it is true that the accommodation is too crowded, although I would like to associate myself with the remarks which have been made about the very valuable services which have been given there. Indeed they have some very good equipment available at these premises.
It is now being proposed to improve the facilities to some extent by the addition of an inoculation centre more adequate than the present arrangements. But as I have said, it was agreed that this could only be regarded as of a temporary character until further arrangements could be made. As my hon. Friends have said, a proposal is now being considered by the University College Hospital group which would, we feel, provide a very considerable unit which would be distinct from, but at the same time, would be associated, as we desire it to be, with St. Pancras. The suggestion is that they might utilise there a modern block which is not only distinct from the rest of the buildings, but would have the great advantage of having the facilities of a great hospital by its side which, I think, is both economical and good sense, and would be of great value to its development. We hope it will not be long before a decision is reached on that proposal.
There are difficulties, as there are difficulties in every kind of proposal of this sort, because, quite properly, the University College Hospital, the teaching hospital, must have regard to other factors as well. If this accommodation is to be used for this purpose, it means reconsideration of plans for other purposes which they had under consideration. Therefore, it

is only natural that it must take them some time to come to a proper decision about it. But I am quite satisfied after seeing both premises and meeting some of those who have been concerned about it, that the University College Hospital is just as anxious as we are to see that proper facilities should be made available and to ensure that everything possible should be done to do that just as rapidly as can be done.
I should like also to say that we realise the very good work in this field that has been done in the past, though I think it would be fair to say that in the past it has always been felt that the accommodation was inadequate for the sort of development we wish to see. We hope that, as it becomes more possible to undertake larger building projects, other schemes, if it is felt desirable, can be undertaken. I think we have got to face the realities of this present position, and I think the proposal that is at present under consideration will meet the immediate needs very fairly and very adequately. I hope that this will reassure anyone who had any doubt about our own desires in the matter and indeed about the practical solution of the difficulties that have been met.
I would once more say that we appreciate very much what has been done in difficult circumstances, in rather difficult accommodation in Devonshire Street, and that, in spite of all the difficulties there, both the matron and staff and those who work in these difficult circumstances have done a job which has, I believe, maintained our very high traditions in this country for service in tropical medicine.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.